Marxism
and
The Bhagvat Geeta
S. G. Sardesai
Dilip Bose
People’s Publishing House
Marxism
and
The Bhagvat Geeta
Marxism
and
The Bhagvat Geeta
S. G. Sardesai
Dilip Bose
July 1982 (P 182)
CopynicHt () Tye ProrLte’s PustisHiInc House Private Limirep
Price: Rs. 8.00
Printed by Jiten Sen at the New Age Printing Press, Rani Jhansi Road,
ae a ai a
=" 4a
fee Sa
PREFACE
As the readers will find, the articles collectively entitled,
Marxism and the Bhagvat Geeta were not planned together.
Bhagavad-Gita and Our National Movement was read as a paper
presented by the author to a seminar on “Indology and Marxism”.
It was subsequently elaborated by him in consultation with our
late, revered comrade, Dr G. Adhikari, and Prof Debiprasad
Chattopadhyaya, and brought out as an independent pamphlet,
“The Riddle of the Geeta” was intended to be an introduction
to the second edition of the pamphlet, but actually became an
independent article by itself.
“The Peculiarities of Hinduism” was written as a helpful ac-
companiment to both the other articles,
We hope the collection, taken together, will be found useful
and will be thankful to the readers for comments and criticism
which we may receive from them,
The articles can, and probably will raise a controversy. We
consider it necessary and desirable in the ideological-political
struggle against the forces of Hindu communalism and national
chauvinism.
New Delhi, S. G. SARDESAI
20.86.1982 Dur Bose
CONTENTS
Preface Vv
1. The Riddle of the Geeta
A Contradictory Treatise—Main Responsibility—The Upanishads—The
Magadha Period—Role of Early Buddhism—Post-Magadha Developments—
Geeta, the Bible of a Renovated Religion—What did the Geeta do?—The
Political role of Bhakti—Tribal Vs Territorial Power—The Sthitaprajna of
the Geeta—From the Geeta to Shankara—Humanist and Patriotic Interpre-
tations of the Geeta—The Future
S. G. Sardesai 1
2. Bhagavad-Gita and Our National Movement
Dilip Bose 37
3. The Peculiarities of Hinduism
S. G. Sardesai 79
THE RIDDLE OF THE GEETA
HIS ARTICLE was inteneded to be an introduction to Bhaga-
* vad-Gita and Our National Movement by Comrade Dilip
Bose. But the roots and branches of the main problem raised
by his essay are so far-reaching that the introduction took the
form of an independent article by itself. With his consent,
therefore, it was decided that the second edition of his pam-
phlet should be brought out as a symposium of two papers
written by the two authors. In fact, one more article has been
added to the collection. I am thankful to Comrade Dilip for
giving me this opportunity,
And what is the problem? It is this that during the last fifteen
hundred years and more, the Geeta (for short) has acquired an
influence and authority in the social, religious and ethical life
of Hindus, even greater than the far more ancient and “revealed”
Vedas, At the same time, it has been put to numberless and
divergent interpretations by its avowed votaries and champions.
Why and how could this happen? What are the positive and
negative aspects of this poetic, religious treatise which lay it
open to various and even conflicting interpretations by different
people in different times and conditions? Are these interpreta-
tions bounded by a certain social and ideological framework, or
can the Geeta be stretched to derive any and all meanings
from itP
A CONTRADICTORY TREATISE
For instance, during our freedom movement, most of our
patriotic (Hindu) leaders drew inspiration from the Geeta for
re-discovering our national identity and for rousing the self-
respect, self-confidence and spirit of suffering and sacrifice of the
people. They harnessed the Geeta to the cause of anti-imperial-
ism. Contrarily, in the post-independence period, the very same
Geeta is being put into the reverse gear on a massive scale.
3
Growingly, it has become a very important ideological weapon
of Indian reaction for fighting all progressive and radical forces
by injecting superstitious, mystical, fatalist ideas, and even com-
munal poison, in the minds of the people. Why?
To proceed, the Adya Shankaracharya saw in the Geeta the
message of “spiritual” knowledge and renunciation (jnana¢ and
sanyasa). To Chaitanya, Jnaneshwar and cther illustrious saint-
poets, the Geeta meant bhakti, unconditional submission to God
steeped in love and devotion. For Lokmanya Tilak, it mirrored
karma-yoga, action without the slightest desire for results. In
fact, for Tilak, the Geeta also taught shatham prati shaathyam,
which means paying the villain in his own coin. In contrast, for
Mahatma Gandhi the Geeta spelt Truth, unsullied even by- the
thought of violence, combined with resistance to evil,
Fantastic as it may seem, the British rulers, too, in their own
way, were “votaries” of the Geeta! It convinced them that
Indians were too “spiritual” and other-worldly to be fit for any
material pursuits, and hence for political power.
Still further, Golwalkar “learnt” from the Geeta that Muslims
were aliens in this country and deserved to be methodically
slaughtered every few months. Deoras is carrying forward his
noble heritage! A living Shankaracharya declared in Poona, a
few years ago, that women and shudras must be despised, be-
cause, according to the Geeta they were “born of sin” (paapa
yoni). To top it all, Rajneesh and the Krishna Consciousness
Society have even discovered “permissiveness” and “free love”
in the Song Celestial |
What is all this jumble? How is one to make head or tail out
of itP How is a rational person who may be prepared to respect
the Geeta but not prepared to mortgage his intelligence to its
“fathomless wisdom” to make any sense out of such a scrambled
egg?
MAIN RESPONSIBILITY
The responsibility for all this confusion lies on the eclectic,
inconsistent and even self-contradictory positions on the Geese
itself.
It lies squarely on the shoulders of the great “Bhagavan” Shri
Krishna, who, while philosophising over the unreality of death
because of the immortality of the soul, and glorifying the “per-
fect” man (sthitapraina) who lives a life beyond good and evil,
compelled poor Arjuna, who loved his kith and kin, to butcher
them without the slightest compunction. Indeed, when despite
all ponderous sermonising, Arjuna refused to budge an inch,
Shri Krishna overawed him by Vishwa Roopa Darsiana, ie.,
by opening his own mouth in which Arjuna saw the entire uni-
verse operating according to the will and command of Shri
Krishna! ! Only then was Arjuna moved to commit the ghastly
crime.
The responsibility lies on the shoulders of Shri Krishna who,
while insisting that the Supreme Power and Ultimate Reality
were property-less and formless (nirguna, nirakara) also claimed
that he himself, a human being in flesh and blood, and a cha-
rioteer at that, was the Supreme God to whom alone Axjuna
owed unquestioning obedience.
The responsibility lies on the shoulders of Shri Krishna who
talked tall about action without the desire for results
(Ii. 47)! while offering to Arjuna the allurement of heaven
(of course, in the company of celestial damsels and a bowl ot
wine!) if he was killed, and an empire if he became victorious,
(if. 37)
And the joke of it all is that, in the end (XI. 33), Shri Krishna
even assured Arjuna that He had already killed the entire enemy
forces and that Arjuna was nothing but the apparent cause of
their impending disaster! What a great God that inspires hero-
ism in such a frightened Arjuna, and what a great warrior that
attacks an enemy that has already been demolished!
A hundred such glaringly incompatible and even ludicrous
positions can be discerned in the Geeta. We will spare the
reader further illustrations.
With all this, however, we come no nearer the solution ot
the riddle. And that is this, that how could such an inconsistent
and egoistical compendium inspire so many people in our
i. he Roman figure in brackets indicates the number of the canto,
aad the Arabic numeral the number of the verse in the canto, of the
Geeta.
history to love humanity, to yearn for the uplift of the lowly
and the meek? How could it give them faith for a determined
pursuit of the mission of their life? Why did our early revo-
lutionaries face the gallows with the Cecta in their hands? How
has such a treatise gripped the minds of crores of Indians for
centuries and continues to do so even now?
No amount of abstract logic or pedantic hair-splitting can
solve this riddle. It can be disentangled only if we approach
it from the standpoint of the historical conditions in which the
Geeta was born, and the historical aims it tried to achieve.
Only then can we see that its incongruities are but a subser-
vient part of the consistency which runs through it like a red
thread,
THE UPANISHADS
The Geeta was compiled, roughly, somewhere between the
beginning of the Christian era and 250 a.p.2 To understand it,
2. The periodisation of Indian ancient and early medieval history (i.e.
up to the arrival of the Arabs, Afghans, Turks, etc.) has been, and con-
tinues to be a headache, The first requisite for the writing of history
is reliable data regarding events and their time and place. Such data
regarding Indian history is not available up to the “Muslim” period (with
the exception of Alexander’s invasion, not to be found in Indian re-
cords), Secondly, India’s socio-economic developments up to the arrival
ot the British was so extraordinarily gradual, that the dividing line be-
tween one period and the next has to be anywhere between two to three
hundred years. This means that, strict chronology apart, there is a
tremendous overlapping even in the socio-economic periods of Indian
history. Thirdly, historical development in the various regions of the
country took place very unevently. I use the term “period”, not in a
strict, chronological sense, but to indicate the development of productive
torces in India. Thus, by the “Rig Vedic period”, | mean the time when
Indo-Aryan society (again, a term that is neither scientifically correct nor
happy) was dominantly pastoral and nomadic. By the “Brahmana-Upa-
nishadic period”, I understand the time when it was in transition from
pastoralism to agriculture and handicrafts, And by the “Magadha period”
I understand the time when it had become fully based on agriculture,
handicrafts, and naturally, trade. Chronologically speaking, this would
mean, roughly, from 1500 s.c. to 1000 s.c., from 1000 s.c. to 600 Buc,
and from 600 s.c. to 200 s.c. The Geeta comes clearly after the
Magadha period.
6
i SS —— ee a en ry i
however, it is necessary to go back to the Upanishadic period
and trace subsequent historical developments up ‘o the time
when the Geeta was born.
During the Upanishadic period, class struggle in the form
of the conflict between the shudras, and very considerably, the
vaishyas, on one side, and the brahmins and kshatriyas, on the
other, became very sharp. The “civil” condition of the shu-
dras and those beyond them (the chandalas, etc.) was horrible.
They were just chattel, not human beings, liable to be beaten
or killed at the will of the master. The vaishyas, though not
exploited and oppressed like the shudras, were thoroughly
fleeced by the upper two varnas.
Tribal chieftains and kings, and in certain cases, oligarchic
tribal republics also emerged in the period. This meant the
undermining of egalitarian tribal customs and _ traditions,
though, due to very slow economic development, not their eli-
mination.
In the sphere of what must be called socio-religious life the
Upanishads developed the interconnected theories of the atma,
the brahma, karma, punarjanma and moksha. This entire sys-
tem of ideas was of a crass class character.
What it meant in actual life was that the brahmins and
kshatriyas were lords of heaven and earth because they had
performed meritorious deeds in their previous birth, while the
shudras and vaishyas had to sweat and toil for those above
them because of sins committed in their previous life.
As for attaining liberation in after-life the only path advo-
cated by the Upanishads was the jnana marg. This meant a
monopoly of the Vedas and deep meditation (preferably com-
bined with an ascetic life) for realising the unity of the indi-
vidual soul (atma) with the cosmic soul (brahma). Since this
path was reserved exclusively for brahmins and kshatriyas,
there is, really speaking, no liberation at all for vaishyas and
shudras in the Upanishads. Theirs was to do and die, with the
hope of a lift on the varna ladder in the next life.
The ruling varnas in the Rig-Vedic-Upanishadic period were
brutally heartless and merciless. War, plunder and violence
was their creed. There is no room for love, compassion and
7
pity anywhere in the Rig Veda or the Upanishads. Timur could
very well have been a chela of the most powerful of Rig-Vedic
Gods, Indra, in the matter of carrying fire and sword into the
“enemy” camp.
THE MAGADHA PERIOD
This civilisation, gradually advancing in the Gangetic valley.
reached Magadha (South Bihar) around 700 sc. to 500) Bc.
There it discovered iron ore on a scale unimaginable and un-
dreamt of up to the end of the Upanishadic period. In fact,
it was the discovery of iron on such a scale, and the forging
of iron tools, implements and weapons on an unprecedented
scale, that is the basic dividing line between the Upanishadic
and Magadha periods. I would go further and call it the
Great Divide in the long history of ancient and medieval India.
Though the subject matter of this article is religion and re-
ligious institutions, it is necessary, briefly, to explain the gigen-
tic change in every sphere Of social life that resulted from the
acquisition of iron deposits on a vast scale, in the Magadha
period. Besides, religious theories and _ institutions, which
provide the rationale and binding ideological force of pre-ca-
pitalist societies, are themselves the product of all-round so-
cio-economic development. Their real meaning and signifi-
cance cannot be understood except in the context of, and in
relation to, such development. The treatment of religion can-
not be limited to the treatment of religion. The ancient
Indian definition of religion Dhaarayati iti Dharmah, is very
meaningful. It means, “Religion is what supports, what holds
together (society).”
Iron meant the production of axes, pickaxes, spades, plough-
shares, nails, metallic rims for cart wheels, tools and instru-
ments of innumerable new handicrafts, swords, and so on. The
development of some rudimentary chemical processes leading,
for instance, to better tanning of leather and leather products,
was inevitable. The blower improved the production of iron.
Jungles and forests were cleared. Agriculture improved,
combined with a great expansion in area. Roads were built,
better and bigger ships were constructed, trade and transport
8
expanded by leaps and bounds. Money economy, real towns
and cities in the place of overgrown villages, followed suit.
Population increased very much faster with the growing means
of subsistence; there was a vast expansion of the geographical
area of civilisation.
Radical political changes, a change in the institutions and
practice ot administration, became inevitable and necessary,
The small, Upanishadic tribal kingdoms and republics, based
on tribal loyalties, began to be replaced by territorial king-
doms. The new economy demanded powerful, centralised states
as driving instruments of hothouse development. The Maga-
dha state directly took over important spheres of industry and
trade. All sorts of taxes were introduced, a vast, paid civil
administration was created. Swords, spears and shields began
to replace bows, arrows and the mace as the main weapons of
war. Standing armies—cavalry and infantry—replaced the
earlier kshatriyas going to war in their chariots. Most of the
kings of the Magadha period were upstart, military adventur-
ers, not noble kshatriyas by birth. No wonder, the holy brah-
min priesthood declared, Nandaantam Kshgtriya Kulam (the
kshatriya nobility and rulers end with the Nandas).
The cultural and political centre of the country naturally
shifted from the Upanishadic Mathura—Hastinapura—Indra-
prastha area to Rajagriha and Pataliputra. This entire deve-
lopment reached its height in the great Mauryan empire, reach-
ing its climax in the reign of Ashoka, when the borders of his
realm included Orissa, Madura and Gandhara. This brings us
to around 200 B.c.
Brahmi, the first script of the Indo-Aryans, evolved and de-
veloped in the Magadha period. The systematic development
of science, in particular, medicine, astronomy and mathema-
tics, also begins in the same era,
All these developments could not but have a tremendous
impact on socio-religious life and intellectual speculation and
enquiry: The Magadha period brought in a great social fer-
ment, I would even say, social “movements”.
What was the focal point of this ferment? It was the ques-
tioning of the social structure and the religious ideas and ins-
9
fitutions of Upanishadic society. Chaturvarnya (the basic four-
caste system), the infallibility of the Vedas, brahma, atma, the
yajna, the theory of karma, rebirth and moksha—all_ were
brought under the anvil, everything was challenged.
One has to realise that Upanishadic society, apart from its
specific structure, was numerically, and in its geographical ex-
panse, very much smaller than Magadhan society. Its structure
and ideology just could not cope with the vaster and far more
complex Magadhan society.
ROLE OF EARLY BUDDHISM
The main vehicle and symbol of the new ferment was Bud-
dhism. Actually, the ferment was much broader in its sweep,
but it was, no doubt, typified in Buddhism. That is why, from
a socio-ideological point of view, the Magadha period is also
referred to as the Buddhist period.
Shudras, untouchables, the mass of the vaishyas, various pri-
mitive tribes, dasas (slaves), hired workers, tenants and even
“free” peasants were subjected to varied and innumerable forms
of bondage, torced labour, levies and taxes, inequality, oppres-
sion, and so on. Whatever the form of exploitation the lot of all
of them was one of hunger, privation and _back-breaking toil.
To an extent the lot of the shudras improved in comparison
with the Upanishadic period, since, in the vast, new society it
was neither possible nor necessary to treat them as biped ani-
mals.
Inevitably, social misery, pain and sorrow increased, There
was such a tremendous ramification of castes (for reasons into
which we cannot go here), that theory apart, it became dif_i-
cult to distinguish the peripheral sub-castes of one varna from
the peripheral sub-castes of the next nearest varna. There were
lower sub-castes of brahmins which the higher brahmin priest-
hood would not recognise as brahmins. There were those
who claimed to be kshatriyas but whom the brahmin priest-
hood stigmatised as shudras. As we know, these tussles con-
tinue down to our day.
It was the intensely human prince Gautama (coming from
a petty tribal principality in which egalitarian tribal traditions
were still surviving), later to become world-tamous as the
10
Buddha, that came forward ‘to evolve some order out of this so-
cial medley and misery.
Inevitably, the first thing he had to, and did challenge, was
the infallibility of the Vedas, the indispensable pillar of Upa-
nishadic brahmin domination. And he also came out against
brahma, atma and the caste system.
Buddha also came out against violence, and as a crusader
for ahimsa, compassion and humanism. In this connection it
has to be realised that the yajna sacrifices, vehemently opposed
by Buddha, involved slaughtering of cattle and horses on a big
scale. That was allright in a pastoral society, but utterly un-
economical in a society that had passed on to agriculture and
trade.
Naturally, what was opposed had to be replaced with some-
thing. Society cannot live and function in a void. It has to
have some kind of material and spiritual binding force.
So Buddha propounded that the world was never created,
it always existed and would continue to exist in a state of per-
petual change, according to its laws of change.
He propounded, and correctly, that men once lived a life of
equality and brotherhood. Then came greed, avarice, violence
and private property leading to misery, sorrow and pain.
So what was the way out? First, lead a life of virtue and
truthfulness, and also, and that was important, form sanghas
whose members would own no property and give up all caste
distinctions and inequality.
Buddhism was superior to the Upanishadic socio-religious.
structure in yet another respect. It was open to all as equals,
and. to individuals as individuals. In the other structure, there
was no scope for entry by individuals, everyone was bom in a
given caste, and hence the shudras and vaishyas could not rise
and become equals of brahmins and kshatriyas.
To this end, Buddha laboured tirelessly all his long life.
What else were his endless wanderings and sermons if not
what, today, we call a pada-yatra and mass campaign? Would
it, therefore, be wrong to call early Buddhism a movement?
There were others even more radical than Buddha. There
was the sect of Ajit Kesha Kambli. There were the Lokayats,
11
far more daring both in the sphere of philosophy and in the
-denunciation of the caste system. But 1 must proceed,
Buddhism never became a mass religion in India, but it be-
came powerful enough to shake up the social, ideological and
spiritual domination of Vedic-Upanishadic-Brahamanical reli-
gion. Upanishadic religion, in its classical form, could never
again be revived in India.
The reasons for the decline of Buddhism are relevant to our
subject and may be briefly stated.
Firstly, Buddha's experiment of the sanghas, with no castes
and no personal property, was utopian and could not but go
the way of all utopias, since they are not based on the reality
-of contemporary historical conditions.
Secondly, despite the fact that Buddha himself took a com-
promising position on most issues, a religion avowedly based
on atheism and clearly leaning on materialism could not hold
‘on to its theoretical tenets for long. God, superstition, reli-
gion, the longing for salvation, are primarily the product of
man’s weakness in the face of nature, and the weakness of
the tciling, exploited masses in the face of the exploiting, op-
‘pressing, governing classes. So long as these conditions exist,
neither God nor superstition nor religion can die. In fact,
even after the social liberation of the toilers, after a substan-
tially increased human control over nature, and after society,
generally, develops a scientific outlook on life, God and reli-
‘gion take a long time to wither away. The experience of the
socialist countries proves that this is a very protracted, diffi-
cult process.
Thirdly, caste in India is at once a social, religious and eco-
nomic organisation. Even modern industrialisation has only
‘succeeded in weakening the caste system, not eradicating it.
In Buddha’s times, it was altogether impossible. Buddhism was
blunted in the face of that impregnable fortress.
And, lastly, like all religions, it ended by becoming subser-
vient to the lords of property and political power. In fact, the
Buddhist priesthood itself rolled down into the mire of luxury,
pomp and all the degeneracies of a parasitica] life.
Buddha himself was turned by the Buddhist priests into a
‘God incarnate, an Avatar. The doors of the atheistic religion
12
were thrown open to magic, idolatry and even hobgoblins.
One thing Buddhism did, which stayed. And that was that it
gave the ignorant, poor masses the hope of salvation which had
been utterly denied to them by Upanishadic society, which did
not even consider them human,
POST-MAGADHA DEVELOPMENTS
The next great empire after the Mauryans comes with the
“classical” empire of the Guptas, after 300 a.v. But the period
between 200 B.c. to 800 a.p., in which the Geeta was born, has
also interesting and significant features,
This period witnessed great foreign invasions from the north-
west, mainly, those of the Indo-Greeks, the Shakas and the
Kushanas. Contending kingdoms within the country, those of
the Shungas, the Shatavahanas, Kalinga, etc., also came on the
scene.
Trade and industry continued to expand. Cultural, econo-
mic, and intellectual intercourse between India, the Roman
Empire, West and Central Asia, and China developed pheno-
menally. Science, sculpture and architecture received a tre-
mendous impetus. For some centuries, India’s “centre” shift-
ed from Pataliputra to Taxila (Taksha Shila).
At the same time, certain features of disintegration also
came on the scene. The Mauryans may have fallen due to for-
eign incursions, But that, really, was the last straw on the
camel’s back. It was one thing to build a vast and mighty
empire by highly centralised, hot-house methods. Given the
extant means of transport and communications, and the costs.
of a highly centralised state apparatus, it was a very different
thing to make such an empire a stable entity. The Magadha
state reached its pinnacle in the reign of Ashoka, but that also
exposed its Achilles heel, viz. that it was extraordinarily cen-
tralised and top heavy. It had over-reached itself, considering,
the technological limitations of the period. The fissures in
Ashoka’s empire started in his own life time. It did not take
long to crumble under the hammer-blows of new, ambitious
military adventurers. In a way, therefore, the post-Mauryap
period is one of political conflict and disintegration, despite
the fact that kingdoms of the Kushanas, Shakas, Shatavahanas,
etc, were by no means small.
13
From a social point of view, also, a very peculiar situation
developed in this period. Upanishadic religion had been given
a body-blow by Buddhism from which it could not and did not
recover. But, while Buddhism was powerful enough to wea-
ken the socio-religious bonds of Upanishadic society, it did
not, despite the efforts of Ashoka, create new bonds that would
bind society from top to bottom. Besides, it had itself degen-
erated.
It has also to be borne in mind that the Shaka and
Kushana invasions were not like those of the Persian king
Cyrus or Alexander. They were not invasions of armies com-
posed of professional soldiers. They were a massive, tribal
immigration into India. This phenomenon was bound to seri-
ously disturb the caste structure in the country, as also chatur-
varnya, which had already become rather notional in the Ma-
gadha period. This meant Varna-Sankara, the great bugbear
of the Smritis, at which the Geeta also looked with horror.
Call it a socio-religious ideological void, call it social (not
economic and political) anarchy, a peculiar social interregnum
did develop after the end of the Magadha period, The old had
faded, the new was yet to be born. Considering the stage of
social evolution of the times, a very much renovated, though
not a new religion was clearly needed.
GEETA, THE BIBLE OF A RENOVATED RELIGION
The bible of that religion was the Geeta.
This religion reached its full development in the Gupta
period (300 to 500 a.pv.). It was based and woven around the
Smritis, the Mahabharata, the Geeta (which needs distinct
mention though it was made a part of the Mahabharata) and
the Puranas. The Mahabharate and the Puranas, in fact, recei-
ved their final shape and content under the Guptas.
It is this religion that is the Hinduism that has come down
to our own days.’
3. It must be noted that the terms “Hindu”, “Hinduism” and “Hindus-
than” did not come into vogue until the arrival of the Muslims, four or
five centuries later. It was they who introduced this nomenclature, It is
amusing that the champions of Hindu Rashtra should take pride in
calling themselves Hindus!
14
WHAT DID THE GEETA DO?
A point of no substantial importance, but blown out of all
proportion by the adorers of the Geeta, may be disposed of
here. Was the Shri Krishna of the Geeta a real historical
figure?
Obviously, he could not be, for the legendary Shri Krishna
with his miraculous exploits, some praiseworthy, others not
very much so, could not exist in India around the beginning cf
the Christian era.
But that is of little significance. In ancient times, in all
countries, social imagination gave birth to certain personalities
if contemporary social organisation had a need for them.
Did Indra really exist ? And yet Rig Vedio society is incon-
ceivable without Indra. And now, even the historicity of
Christ has come into dispute,
So, whoever blew the trumpet of the Geeta was Shri Krish-
na, That should suffice for a scientific treatment of the subject.
In the fourth canto of the Geeta (verse 7) Shri Krishna de-
clares, “Whenever Dharma becomes moribund and Adharma
raises its head, I come on the scene, in age after age.” And
for what? “For the re-establishment of Dharma” (IV. 8). With
all its egoism, this statement reflected the reality of the situa-
tion. The confusion in the chaturvarnya hierarchy created by
Buddhism and the Shaka-Kushana invasions was what the wri-
ter of the Geeta had in mind when he speaks of “Adharma
raising its head”.
Before going into details, the historical achievement of the
Geeta should be stated in a nutshell.
WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE BASIC’ POSITION OF THE
UPANISHADS, THE GEETA MODIFIED AND SYNTHESISED VARIOUS SUB-
SEQUENT TRADITIONS AND VIEWS TO SUIT THE CONTEMPORARY
PRACTICAL AND IDEOLOGICAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROPERTY-
OWNING, GOVERNING CLASSES,
Such an attempt was bound to have two features. On the
one hand, its consistency lay in defending the material and
ideological needs of the ruling class. On the other, its incon-
gruities mirrored its effort to bring about a forced synthesis of
15
diverse traditions and views, which could no longer be ignored.
Let us now illustrate and elaborate this generalised charac-
terisation of the historical role of the Geeta.
The Geeta reasserts, categorically and unambiguously, the
divine validity of chaturvarnya and the theological idealism of
the Upanishads: bruhma, atma, and the merging of the atma
into brahma for attaining mokshg (ultimate salvation).
“Chaturvarnya has been created by Me” (IV. 13), and “Me”
means the personalised incarnation of God, Shri Krishna.
Hence, no nonsense is to be tolerated as regards basic posi-
tions! The only change is that chaturvarnya, instead of being
created by brahma, purusha, praiapati, etc, is now created by a
God in human form, a point to which we will come in a mo-
ment.
The venerable, holy and “natural” (svgbhaavaja) duties ot
the brahmin, and the equally heroic “natural” duties of . the
kshatriya, as a ruler, are clearly laid down in the eighteenth
canto.
To the “natural” duties of the vaishyas, trade is added to
agriculture and rearing cattle. Trade had little significance
up to the Upanishads.
It is on the “natural” duties of the shudra, however, that the
Geeta lays the maximum and most merciless emphasis.
“Service is the natural action (duty) of the Shudra” (XVIII.
44). |
As though this mandatory verdict were not enough, time and
again, the Geeta reiterates that nothing is higher than the ob-
servance of one’s duties as prescribed by the divine laws of
chaturvarnya, and nothing more heinous than their breach,
“It is glory to die in the observance of one’s own Dharma,
but the Dharma of others is a horror”, pontificates the Supreme,
Divine Shri Krishna (III. 35, XVIII. 45, XVIII. 47, etc.).
In fact, it goes further and enjoins that no confusion and
doubts must be created in the minds of the ignorant in the
4. ‘the werd for duty used in the Geeta is karma , which _ literally
means action. It has to be noted that in the Geeta, the word kerma
is used overwhelmingly to mean action (duty) as laid down by the sys-
tem of chaturvarnya. The word dharma is also used as a synonym for
duty as !aid down by the laws of chaturvarnya.
16
performance of their duties (III. 24). So, if you “incite” the
shudras, you are done for!
Thus, the screw is tightened on whatever social “laxities”
(udharma) had been created by Buddhism und the disturbed
conditions of the post-Magadha period.
The defenders of the Geeta point out that according to the
Geeta, chgturvarnya was created in accordance with the qua-
lities and actions of the individual (IV. 13). Even so, it was
a class-divided, exploitative social structure. But if it were
really so, varna and caste ought not to have been determined
by birth. The Geeta does not say that those who have the
mentality and habits of menials are to be treated as shudras.
It clearly states that shudras have the “natural” mentality of
servants. So one is a shudra_ before one becomes a menial.
This means that shudras were shudra by birth, not because of
any inherent servile traits or mentality,
Apart from tightening the chains of servitude on the shudras,
the Geeta displays a revolting contempt for the lower orders
and women from beginning to end.
Women, vaishyas and shudras are bracketed together with
the chandalas as those that are born of sin (IX. 32).
Further, the Geeta says that when a person reaches the stage
of a sthitaprajna he becomes same darshi. And then he looks
upon a learned brahmin, a cow, an elephant, a dog and a chan-
dala as equal (V. 18). So one has to reach the sublime stage
of a sthitaprajna to be able to look at a chandala, a dog and a
brahmin as equal! And going by all ancient scriptures not
one in a million had the capacity to reach that stage.
This clearly means that in the reality of earthly life, the hig-
her orders did not consider a chandala and a brahmin equal
as human beings. And since, further, a chandala is also brac-
keted with a dog, this means that the higher orders considered
a chandala and a dog as being on the same footing in mun-
dane life. Such is the injunction of the Great Bhagavan Shr1
Krishna, nothing less than the incamation of Vishnu on earth}
Comment is needless.
All these positions notwithstanding, the fact remained that
the time of the Geera was not the time of the Upanishads, Tons
of water had flowed down the Ganges in the eight or nine
c—2 17
centuries intervening between the two. In the interval, Bud-
dhism, and sects even more radical than Buddhism, had raised
the voice of the lower orders, preached «himsa, compassion,
love for the lowly, and so on. The effect of the mass popula-
rised slogans of ahimsa paramo dharmah, dayaa hi paramo
dharmah, could not just be washed away. “Intelligent adjust-
ments” (of course, in the interest of the rich and the powerful)
had become unavoidable.
So, while bracketing women, vaishyas and shudras with those
born of sin, the Geeta opened for them the door of mokske
(IX. 32).
This had been barred to them by the Upanishads, with ex-
ceptions that only proved the rule. But what Yajnavalkya, the
reat authority of Upanishadic spiritual wisdom, had denied,
the Geera, after the body blow delivered by Buddhism to that
‘wisdom, could not deny. The author of the Geeta conceded
it, if not with grace, at any rate, with “discretion”,
The next point is even more significant and interesting, The
door of moksha may be thrown open to the lower orders and
‘women. But how were they to enter it?
The only path advocated by the Upanishads was penance
and meditation, pompously called the Jnana Marg. But the
ponderous and mystical mumbo-jumbo of g@tma and bralima
was utterly incomprehensible to the lower orders. That was
the monopoly of brahmins and kshatriyas. Besides, these upper
orders also needed the back-breaking toil of the vaishyas and
shudras for their very existence and comfort. So who was
going to allow the lower orders the luxury of retiring into the
forests and meditating which was bound to deprive the upper
orders of the economic foundation of their ease and comfort?
A way.out had to be found. And that was bhakti, whose
roots went back to later Buddhism, though its fully worked
‘out theory and practice is the contribution of the Geeta.
Bhakti meant unconditional surrender to God, with profound
feelings of love and devotion. It needed no meditation, no
penance, no insight into the occult mysteries of brahma and
atma. A leaf, a flower, a fruit, or plain water, anything offer-
ed to God with devout love, did the job (IX. 26), The fifth
verse in the twelfth canto unabashedly states that the easy
18
path of bhakti was meant particularly for the ignorant, the rus-
tic.
_ So the problem was solved. Keep the lower orders and
women out of the theological-intellectual preserves which gave
the aura of sanctity to the economic and political power of the
exploiters, and yet open to them the door of moksha. What a
marvellous solution! Everything is for the best in the best of
all possible worlds! Satyam, shivam, sundaram!
_ Let us proceed further. The poor and the ignorant cannot
worship and pray to an incomprehensible abstraction, an elu-
' sive Power that cannot be seen with one’s eyes, cannot be
_ touched by hand, cannot be heard by the ears, cannot even be
thought of by the brain. (This is not a satirical remark. This
_ is precisely how the atma and brahia are described in various
places in the Upanishads. Vide, the famous passage, “Neti,
Neti”.)
_ The “multitude” needs a palpable, tangible, human God to
_ worship and to propitiate, And this means a personalised,
~ human God.
_ For this “contraption” also the way had been cleared by
_ later Buddhism. The Buddha had to pass through many lives
before he attained Buddhahood. Then why not the Supreme
: Power descend on earth occasionally in flesh and blood, in the
form of an incarnation, an quetar? And that is the solution of
_ the Bhagavad Geeta.
It took Sharanam Gachchami from Buddham Sharanam Gach-
_ chami and just installed Shri Krishna in the place of Buddha.
_ The one mandate repeated in the Geeta ad nauseum is, “Sur-
_ render to Me alone”, “Give up all Gcds and surrender to Me”,
_ “My bhaktas will never perish”, “I am the universe, I am the
smallest particle, I am everything”!
So the “multitude” was given a tangible God who needed
nothing more to propitiate than devout love and dedication.
That the main, pre-Buddhist Upanishads had no_ place for
any such thing did nct matter. Isn’t Hinduism “flexible”? Does
it not “assimilate” ever new ideas and yet “remain the same”?
There are very appreciative references in the Geeta to ahimsa,
compassion, mercy and so on. Clearly, they come from the
Buddhist tradition, not Upanishadic.
19
In the sphere of philosophy, the Geeta is at pains to reconcile
Sankhya, Yoga and Vedanta (i.e. Upanishadic idealism). There
are sentences such as “Prakriti determines what you do
(XVIII. 59). In fact, God Shri Krishna even claims that “Among f
those that have attained Perfection, I am Kapila Muni” (X. 26). {
Kapila, as is known, is considered the founder of Sankhya phi- |’
losophy.
How is this position reconciled with the running Vedantic [
thread of the Geeta that it is the Absolute, Unknowable, Form. [
less, etc. Principle that governs and guides all human actions? [
Simple. Shri Krishna’s position is that every truth is true on its
own plane, but the plane of Vedanta being the highest, all
other truths are subservient to it. Q.E.D.
So the Geeta does not give up, it stands by the basic phil-so-
phical tenets of Vedanta. What it attempts is a squaring of the
circle, squeezing other philosophical theories (the detestable Lo-
kayata, of course, excepted!) into Vedanta.
Here, mention may be made of an interesting, I might even
say creditable (let us give the opponent his due) characteristic
of the Geeta.
Its language is, at once, poetic, simple and terse. It is even
epigrammatic. Those who have known the Geeta will never
forget its lucid aphorisms which grip the reader. Mighty
brains had toiled before the Gezta, and mighty brains have
sweated after it to explain the theory of the transmigration of
the soul. How can the unseeable atma, and that after the death
of an individual, pass into the body of another person yet un-
born? Very simple, says the Geeta. “Just as a person casts
away tattered clothes and puts on new ones!” (II. 22), This
just floors you, doesn’t itP And you must be an utter dunce,
indeed, if the Divine Light still does not penetrate your dense
head |
THE POLITICAL ROLE OF BHAKTI
The late Prof. Kosambi made a contribution to the under-
standing of the Geeta by bringing out the political role of
bhakti.
The Geeta, as we have explained, belongs to a period (a very
long one, no doubt) when tribal kingdoms and republics were
20
‘
{
|
on the way out and territorial kingdoms and empires were tak-
ing their place.
Every political power needs an ideological-spiritual basis for
commanding the loyalty of its citizens. The ultimate sanction
of political power is force, but that alone does not suffice to
maintain “law and order”. The people have to accept a gov-
emment voluntarily if it is to function normally. And that de-
mands some commonly accepted concept of loyalty to the
state.
In the tribal kingdoms, it was the blood relation between the
clans of the tribe that provided the bond of unity and loyalty
to the king.
What was to replace it in the territorial kingdoms? It was
the concept of the king as the representative of God (in Europe)
and as an element of Godhood (in India) that became the new
basis of loyalty and obedience to the state power.
This was still further reinforced by the development of feu-
dalism in India about two centuries after the Geeta in the
Gupta period. We shall come to it later.
But there is not the slightest doubt that bhakti towards God
in the Geeta most certainly strengthened fealty to the king, as
an element of God, in Indian feudalism. No wonder it helped
the Guptas who even re-edited the Puranas to strengthen the
loyalty of their subjects to the throne.
Thus, bhakti towards God strengthened bhgekti towards the
king, bhakti towards the king strengthened bhakti towards God,
and both together helped to consolidate the temporal and
Spiritual power of the governing, property-owning classes over
the toiling masses. What a happy solution!
TRIBAL VS TERRITORIAL POWER
That brings us to what is really the central issue, the centrai
theme of the Bhagvat Geeta.
The Geeta is famous as a dialogue between Shri Krishna and
Arjuna. The latter, the most valorous warrior of the five Pan-
dava brothers, refuses to kill his kith and kin, the Kauravas, as
aes face him, ready for battle, in the epic armageddon of
21
Bharata.’ After great effort, Shri Krishna convinced him that
it was his duty to fight, and Arjuna went into action,
What does this discussion really mean? What is it all about?
It is generally believed that it was a difference of opinion on
the question of violence and non-violence. Arjuna did not want
to kill his brethren while Shri Krishna held that they had to
be killed. But this is an oversimplification,
The Geeta is not a dialogue on the question of violence and
non-violence in general, in the abstract. Shri Krishna himself
pays tribute to the noble principle of ahimsa in three or four
places in the Geeta.
The dialogue is on a specific question of violence vs non-
violence, and that issue had great historical significance.
In the very opening canto of the Geeta, where Arjuna just
puts down his bow and arrows, and refuses to fight, the ques-
tion he raises is this. “I see before me my brothers, cousins,
uncles, preceptors, all my relatives. To kill them means the
destruction of the Kula (clan, tribe). Such destruction means
the end of the ancient Kula Dharma. Those who ccmmit that
crime go to hell” (I. 39, 40, 44),
This was a_ clear, historical question. War and violence
were there in tribal societies. But that took place between
different tribes, not connected with one another by blood.
Violence against a member of one’s own tribe, i.e. within the
periphery of blood relations, was unknown to tribal societies.
It was just not done. Such violence violated the sacred princi-
ple of kula dharma and was impermissible, no matter for what
reason. In fact, tribal customs and traditions (laws) made it
obligatory for every member of a tribe to protect and defend
every other member in the event of danger. One for all, all
for each, that was the very bedrock of tribal life and society.
No wonder, Arjuna was simply flabbergasted at the very idea
5. ‘he gigantic battle full cf miracles described in the Mahabharata,
never took place. But historians are now agreed that the battle of
Bharata, tought on Kuru Kshetra, did take place somewhere in the ninth
or tenth centuty B.c. and that it had a significant role in Indian history.
Experts are now engaged in separating fact from fiction in India’s grea-
test epic, the Mahabharata.
22
ace ES Ra TE TTT = EE EEE ee
— nr PE I
of committing such a heinous sin and just laid down his arms,
refusing to go into action,
We have shown earlier that the issue of tribal versus terri-
torial power dogged Indian history for centuries. By the time
of the Guptas, it was finally settled in favour of the territorial
principle. Samudra Gupta, the “Napoleon” of India, is famous.
for having destroyed a very large number of tribal kingdoms
in Punjab and Rajputana, where tribalism lingered on very
much longer than in the Gangetic valley.
Shri Krishna, in the Geetu, is the champion of the territorial
principle, as against Ariuna, still devoted to tribal unity and
loyalty. Ultimately, Shri Krishna wins, Arjuna loscs, that is
the significance of the epic dialogue.
Why the author of the Geeta, written about a thousand years.
after the battle of Kuru Kshetra, should have chosen that epi-
sode to interpolate a hypothetical dialogue into the Mahabharu-
ta is not difficult to explain.
Principles and theories associated with the hoary, sacrosanct
past exercise great influence on the minds of the people, even
today, in the age of science and rationalism. Obviously, that
was far more so two thousand years ago, when the Geeta was
written. The theory it needed for contemporary politics had
to be made sacrosanct and thus authoritative by associating it
with the hoary past. That also explains the vishva roopa dar-
shana and other miracles shoved into the Geeta.
THE STHITAPRAJNA OF THE GEETA
Many rationally-minded people who do not accept the hocus-
pocus of the Geeta are sti]] tremendously impressed by its cha-
racterisation of the sthituprajna (IL. 54 to 72). They see in him
the ideal that every noble-minded person should strive to
reach.
The sthitaprajna of the Cceta, no doubs, appears an ideal
personality. His description includes innumerable qualities
which a brave person, totally devoted to the cause of the peo-
ple, has to possess. He is fearless, unruffled and self-controll-
ed under all circumstances, utterly unselfish, conscientious in
his duties towards society, etc. etc.
23
But a philosophical question, with very serious practic] im-
plications, cannot be bypassed when we consider the charac-
ter of the sthitaprajna.
Every single description of the sthitaprajna in the Geeta
clearly presents him as an extremely self-centred, egoistical
personality. His peace of mind, his detachment frcm all at-
tachments (unaasgkti), all arise, not from his identity with the
people, but with the Supreme Brahma, No one who knows
the Upanishads and the Geeta can deny that the sthitaprajna
is no one else than the person in the Upanisl:ads who reaches
the stage of considering himself as brahina. The idea behind
aham brahmaasmi (I am Brahma) is identical with the concept
of the sthitaprajna.
The sthitaprajna reaches a state of Bliss by concentrating on
his own self (II. 55). He withdraws his sense perceptions with-
in himself just as a tortoise withdraws its limbs within its own
body (II. 58). So on and so on, the Geeta proceeds with his
description. And, as though all this would still be insufficient,
we have the famous verse (II. 69) which says, “What is night
for all creatures is wakefulness for him. What is wakefulness
for the creatures is night for him.” So, what is light for you
and me is darkness for the sthitaprajna, what is darkness fcr us
is light for him. The implication is clear. The masses are
sunk in ignorance, greed, voluptuousness, temptation, violence,
and what not. The one who has seen Light is untouched by
all human weaknesses.
If this is not spiritual ego, what else is itP Deep down in
his heart the sthitaprajnag looks down upon the people, he has
a profound spiritual contempt for them.
Pity and benevolence have nothing in commcn with the sense
of being identified with the people. To be “for” the people
is not the same as being “of” the people. And, besides, the
question of questions is always there. It must always crop
up like King Charles’ head. The sthitaprajna is “for” the peo-
ple s‘rictly within the straightjacket of claturvurnya!
The ideal leader of the people is never a benevolent dicta-
tor. He is a revolutionary democrat.
24
FROM THE GEETA TO SHANKARA
This means, roughly, from 200 a.v. to 900 a.v. Though the
“classical” Gupta empire lasted for less than two hundred years
(about 300 to 500 a.p.) in this period, it should be characterised
as the Gupta age, for, it was the Guptas who initiated its most
characteristic feature, feudalism.
The self-sufficient village economy of India, with its iron-
clad, caste-based, sccial division of labour, dates from a much
earlier period. But it is with the emergence of the samantas,
who come on the scene under the Guptas, that a feudal, poli-
tical system began to take shape in the country.
This was inevitable. As pointed out earlier, under extant
conditions of transport and communications, and of technology
in general, the big kingdoms and vast empires of the period
could not be stabilised by centralised administrative methods.
The devolution of political and administrative authcrity, de
facto and/or de jure, by the king or emperor to his feudatories,
On condition that they owed fealty to him, was the only man-
ner in which such governments could be run. This was a re-
treat from Magadna statecraft, but it was unavoidable.
Trade and cities also declined after abcut 500 a.p. There
was a considerable ruralisation of society as also of the gover-
ning classes.
The really tragic consequence (though there, too, the ques-
tion “What else could happen”, cannot be answered) was that
feudalism also brought in its wake, all-round stagnation.
The Gupta empire is rightly considered the most dazzling
empire of aucient India, or, more correctly speaking, the em-
pire on the threshold between ancient and medieval India.
In pomp, splendour, and the opulence of the governing classes
(though not in power), it certainly surpassed the empire of
Ashoka.
At the same time, the brahmin priesthood was given, and
acquired, a religious, social, economic, and even political au-
thority under the Guptas that it had never enjoyed before.
Land gifts to brahmins and temples swelled like a snowball
And, under feudalism, land not only means economic power
but social influence and administrative authority.
The rising feudatories and brahmins were, by no means, mo-
25
dels of the spirit of quest, adventure, discovery and advance
in various spheres of social activity. They were, as all cver ‘he
world, the very reverse. They stood for social conservatism,
suffocating ritualism, subservience to authority, ignorant parc-
chialism, the strangulation of science, and everything retrogres-
sive and oppressive in life. Exclusiveness between caste and
caste, based on religious injunctions regarding purity and pol-
lution reached the limit. In a word, the all-round ossification
of Indian society begins as the country reached the pinnacie
of its glory.
Gone were the days of Magadha, Milinda (Menander) and
Kanishka when Indians braved the stormy seas to reach Cam-
bodia and South China; when they crossed awesome mountains
and waterless deserts to reach Tibet, Sinkiang and Baku; when
Taksha Shila was an emporium of international trade, science,
and philosophy; when Indian materialist philosophers and sci-
entists dispensed with God both as Creator and Governer of
the universe; in a word, when Indians believed in the exchange
of material and spiritual values, in giving and taking, in teach-
ing others and learning from others.
Foreign travel itself was now damned as sinful for which
atonement was obligatory on returning home. It was from the
Gupta period onwards that great pressure was exercis2d by the
brahmin priesthood on our scientists (doctors and astronomers)
and materialist philosophers to compromise their rational, athe-
istic positions, or theistic interpolations were brazenly smugg!ed
into their compendia.
A typical expression of this period was, Na vadet yaavanin
bhaashaam, meaning, one should not speak the language of the
Greeks. From the Indo-Greek period onwards the upper circles
of Indians and the Indo-Greeks had become conversant with
each other’s language, which naturally made a tremendous con-
tribution to scientific and intellectual advance, This was now
frowned upon, Simultaneously, Sanskrit, the language cf the
elite, the rulers and of priestly cbscurantism, developed an im-
portance in the Gupta age unknown to the Magadha period.
Buddha and Ashoka spoke and patronised the languzges of the
people, right frem Kalinga to Gandhara, The edicts on Ashoka’s
pillars are in Iccal languages, not in Sanskrit.
26
The Rig Vedic and Upanishadic Rishis, with all their callous
heartlessness towards the shudras, were a go-ahead people, out
to conquer nature, increase production and organise society.
The same spirit continued during the Magadha—Ind2-Greek-
Kushana period. It was during the Gupta period and onwards.
that the governing classes became utterly parasitical, the mas-
ses sank into stupor, progress was choked and _ society be-
came a stagnant pool.
Social intercourse is the prime requisite of social and intellec-
tual advance. When a society fragments itself into a thousand
divisions with the doors of intercourse barred and belted be-
tween caste and caste, and between all of them and the wide
world outside, it invites its own decay and doom.
We get a vivid glimpse of this India in A] Biruni’s memoirs.
“I am pure, you are impure”, “you must not touch me, I will
not even drink water touched by you", “I will not teach you
anything, I will learn nothing from you”, “Knowledge based on
the test of reason and practice must surrender to ignorance
based on blind faith”, “I will stew in my own juice and yet in-
sist that my esoteric wisdom is the highest in the world”—there,
you have post-Gupta India for you!
A “touch me not” society ends up by becoming a mummified
society.
I am putting the issue very sharply, because, ctherwise, in
my opinion, we just cannot understand Shankara.
In the sphere of philosophy, he carried the idealism of Vedanta
to its logical absurdity. And this interpretation he got, prach-
channa (concealed) Bouddha that he was, from the later, deca-
dent Buddhist Vijnanavadins and Shoonyavadins. Neither the
Upanishads nor the Geeta subscribed to the view that the sense-
perceived world just did not exist; that it was pure illusion; that
creation was a myth, since the tangible world was a myth; that
all change and mutation were unadulterated nonsense. The
Upanishads and the Geeta were not Advaita-Vedantins, That
was Shankara’s “unique” contribution to the “development” of
Vedanta. Naturally enough, Shankara was furiously opposed to
logic based on practical experience, which he openly ridiculed.
Preceeding further, Shankara carried the jnana marg of Ve-
danta also to its logical conclusion. His sanyasa (renunciation)
27
amounted to a complete escape from life. Very naturally, too,
since, for him, life itself was pure illusion, If Shankara, and
not Shri Krishna, had been the mentor of Arjuna, he would
have advised Arjuna simply to run away from battle, not be-
cause it would have been wrong to kill one’s kith and kin, but
because the battle itself was totally unreal. Lokmanya Tilak
criticised Shankara on this very ground, because, as
Tilak correctly pointed out, karma yoga and Advaita Vedanta
could not be reconciled.
The point I want to stress is that Shankara’s Advaita Vedanta
is not only ontologically indefensible. All idealism is ontologi-
cally indetensible. The characteristic feature of Shankara’s in-
‘terpretation of Vedanta was that he gave it an extremely nihi-
listic and pessimistic twist. Why?
The explanation is to be found in the contemporary state of
Indian society. It was a society that had become so stagnant,
introvert and divided against itself that it lost all confidence in
its present and all optimism about its future, It is this society
that is mirrored, on the philosophical plane, in Advaita Vedanta.
HUMANIST AND PATRIOTIC INTERPRETATIONS
OF THE GEETA
Now we have to come to the greatest contradiction in the
interpretation of the Geeta. How is it that a treatise, so pal-
pably anti-people in content, could be used for humanist, pro-
‘gressive causes in later centuries?
The answer to this question needs going deeper into the
problem of idealism itself.
Vedanta is avowedly an idealist philosophy. The inherent
outlook of idealism is the denial of materia] reality, sense per-
ceived reality. I am saying outlook, because not all idealists
totally deny the existence of material reality, as was done by
Shankara or Berkeley. Most attribute to matter a derivative,
secondary existence. All the same, even such idealists take the
position that ultimate reality is a pure idea, pure conscicusness,
and that it is unknowable through sense perception, including
man’s brain. There are those who hold that it is hypotheti-
cally unknowable, others, like the Vedantists, who hold that
through some supernatural intuition, man merges into ultimate
aR
reality, and thereby understands it, or, as they put it, “realises”
it. In any case, it is beyond human comprehension based on
human faculties.
Denying material reality and, at the same time somehow
recognising it, is the basic contradiction cf idealism, Vedanta
not excepted, which leads it to all sor.s of contradictory posi-
tions. In practical life, it means that various, and even con-
tradictory conclusions, can be drawn from it.
For instance, the one drawn by Shankara was that since the
world was totally unreal, one’s purpose in life had to be a
total withdrawal (nivritti) from the deceptive (bkraamak), illu-
sory (maayaatmak) world of sense perception, To put it
in Shankara’s own words, who, despite all his philosophical
illusionism, was a brilliant campaigner as well, “Who is your
wife? Who, your sonP Whence do you come? Whither are
you going? This Sansaar is extremely strange. Give up all
illusions about it and surrender to the infinite.”
A second, and very different, conclusion was drawn by the
renowned Bhakti cult saint poets from the twelfth century on-
wards. “True”, they said, “that ultimate reality is mystical,
formless, propertyless, etc. But, after all, the sense perceived
world and Chaturvarnya are the creation of the Supreme
Being. From the Brahmin to the Chandala, everybody’s Atma
is the same. If the brahmin can realise ultimate reality through
Jnana, so can women, vaishyas and shudras, through Bhakti.
All are the children of God, and hence, basically the same.
Finally, all meet in moksha, So, granting Chaturvarnya, why
should women and the lower orders be subjected to the atro-
cious treatment meted out to them by the orthodox, bigoted
and vain Brahmin priesthood? We must give them a humane
treatment, human treatment.” Many of the saint poets, in fact,
went further in their denunciation of the priests. They called
them conceited ignoramuses, hypocrites and tyrants. And they
embraced the untouchables also within the Bhakti fold.
And, this is not a question only of interpretation. In actual
life, it brought about a sharp conflict. The priesthood not only
cursed the saint-poets, it persecuted, ostracised and anathema-
tised the Bhakti saints.
So, idealism in general, and Vedanta, as it developed, in
29
India, could be yoked to humanism and hence to progressive
causes. There is no need, and no question of denying it.
It needs to be stated further that this was also due to feudal
conditions. Firstly, religion provided the overall ideology of
feudal society, and hence, protestant movements also took on
.a religious form. Secondly, and I think, that is also very im-
portant, feudal society is the most static, the most vegetative,
of all human societies.
Feudal society is dominantly agrarian, The land owning
classes living parasitically on rent and forced labour extorted
from the actual cultivator, are interested only in maximising
such extortion. The cultivator, on the other hand, has no in-
‘terest in increasing production since he knows that beyond his
bare needs of subsistence he is bound to be deprived of every-
thing he produces. Therein lies the root of feudal stagnation.
I am mentioning this point, because, sometimes, the question
is asked as to why the socio-ideological viewpoint of the Bhakti
cult was not as advanced as that of Buddha. There is no
denying that early Buddhism was far more advanced and radi-
cal, all along the line, than the Bhakti movement. The reason,
according to me, is that neither Upanishadic society, nor so-
ciety in the Magadha period, was the static, hidebound society
of the post-Gupta period. This is not to underplay the cruel-
ty, exploitation and oppression of the earlier periods. What
I want to say is that the earlier societies were fluid, whereas
feudalism was not. They were definitely more dynamic than
the post-Gupta society.‘
Now to come to our nineteenth century revivalist (Hindu) pa-
triotic school. Why did our patriotic leaders hark back to the
Geeta?
Before Indians could as much as understand what was hap-
pening, Great Britain subjugated India within half a century
of the battle of Plassey. Sheer despondency, loss of self-confi-
dence, even an inferiority complex enveloped the whole coun-
try.
6. I must state here that, as yet, I have not been able properly to
study India between the twelfth and eighteenth centuries. So my judge-
ment should be considered as applicable to the period, roughly, up to
1000 A.D.
30
The first thing that the rising patriotic leadership had to do
was to regenerate self-respect and self-confidence among the
pecple. The consciousness that “We have the strength to re-
gain what we have lost” had to be creuted.
The ideological weapon they caught hold of was that our
ancient “spiritual” civilization was superior to the “materialist”
west. The atma was stronger than all material force and was
bound to win in the end.
In fact, more. It was the clear position of the Geeta that the
body was perishable and hence transient, while the ama was
imperishable, eternal, immortal. “Hence”, said our leaders to
the people, “Why are you afraid of physical pain, torture and
deathP Why are you afraid of British batons, bullets and pri-
scnsP Your body may suffer but your imperishable Atma will
live for ever.”
No wonder Khudiram Bose embraced the gallows, inspired
by the death-defying lines of the Geeta on his lips, “Weapons
cannot pierce Him, fire cannot burn Him, nothing can destroy
Him” (II. 23).
At the same time, the cloven hoof of Vedanta was revealed
even in the nineteenth century. For, tragiccmically, the Bri-
tish rulers also “upheld” the Geeta and Vedanta to “prove”
that Indians were unfit for Swaraj. And can it be denied that
Shankara’s interpretation of Vedantic idealism gave the hated
foreign rulers a handle to “prove their case?”
Let us proceed further. As the Hindu patriots harked back
to the Gedta, no doubt for patriotic purposes, Muslim patriots
naturally harked back to the Quran for the same purpose. And
it cannot be denied, at least now, that despite and irrespective
of the laudable purpose of both, they did bring grist to the
British policy of divide and rule. Between progressive revival-
im and communalism the dividing line is thin, and what is
worse, very slippery. Such was the tragic end of harnessing
the Geeta and the Quran to the cause of the struggle for free-
dom.
Marxism does not deny, has never denied, that idealist philo-
sophy can and does serve progressive causes. Marxism is dia-
lectical and historical materialism, not mechanical material-
ism. What it insists upon is that we have to understand the
31
limitations and the negative aspects of such a utilisation of
idealism. A philosophy which rejects the fundamental reality
of matter, of nature; which rejects sense perception and hence
practice as the instruments of valid knowledge, such a philoso-
phy necessarily leads to mysticism, agnosticism, deism, supers-
tition and all sorts of obscurantism. No wonder, in the long
ages of human history, idealism has been, dominantly, a wea-
pon of the exploiters against the exploited, of the oppressors
against the oppressed, of ignorance and darkness against scien-
ce, knowledge and human progress.
With all respect to the great Shri Krishna, it is not the in-
trovert sthitaprajna who concentrates his thoughts on himself,
who withdraws his sense perceptions within himself like the
tortoise withdrawing its limbs within itself, that attains Light
and Real Knowledge. It is the “ignorant”, benighted masses
who shape the destiny of humanity by their sweat and toil,
who struggle with Godforsaken matter every moment of their
life, it is they that reach the heights of light, true knowledge
and freedom (and no capital letters, please!) It is the Geeta,
not we, that turns things upside down. It is the Geeta, not we,
that turns darkness into light, and light into darkness.
THE FUTURE
How about the future? And, by the future, I mean the
struggle for socialism which is now accepted by all cur pro-
gressive and democratic forces as India’s goal in the days ahead.
I know people, many of them quite sincere, who suggest
that the appeal of the Geeta should be utilised for our advan-
ce towards socialism. The argument is generally based on “the
traditions and psychology of the Indian people”.
However alluring and tempting this suggestion may be, one
has to be clear that the Geeta cannot provide the basis for the
necessary advance.
Woolly sentimentalism and misguided patriotic pride are
poor guides on the issue.
THE FUNDAMENTAL AND INVIOLABLE FRAMEWORK OF THE GEETA
IS CHATURVARNYA AND VEDANTA. CHATURVARNYA MEANS BUILT
IN, ENDOGAMOUS INEQUALITY BY BIRTH. AND VEDANTA MEANS MYS-
TICISM,
32
NOT ONE OF THE INNUMERABLE AND DIVERSE INTERPRETATIONS
PUT ON THE GEETA THROUGH THE CENTURIES TRANSGRESSES THIS
BaSIC FRAMEWORK OF THE GEETA.
Even the humanist Bhakti cult and our patriots, right up to
Mahatma Gandhi, never rejected this framework. In fact, they
swore by it. What they rejected was the utterly reactionary
interpretation of the bigoted Sanatanists, and the anti-national
interpretation of the British rulers.
One has to be absolutely clear on this point when thinking of
the future. The theory of Vedanta, and even of chaturvurnya,
can be stretched like rubber. But like rubber, not beyond a
point. Beyond that point, it snaps, Beyond that point, it has
to be rejected, if we want to advance further.
The struggle for socialism is inconceivable without rousing
the class consciousness and forging the class unity of the toil-
ing masses.
And class cuts through caste, just as caste cuts through
class. One or the other. The two cannot become bed-fellows.
Similarly, a rational, scientific understanding of all the pro-
cesses of nature and human society is indispensable, both for
the theory and the practice of the struggle for socialism. Ve-
danta means mysticism. Mysticism and science can no more
go together than class and caste.
In this context, it cannot be forgotten for a moment that
crores upon crores of the toiling Muslims, Harijans and Adivasis
have to be brought into the struggle for socialism if it is to
succeed in India. It is ridiculous to hope that they can be
inspired by any interpretation of the Geeta, no matter how we
may stretch the rubber.
That is why a consistent struggle against Vedantic idealism
and chaturvarnya, the caste system, is indispensable if we are
to progress in the direction of socialism.
Far from avoiding it, or going in for patched up compro-
mises, we have to take it up with zest and persistence.
Further, the problem has a direct link with present-day po-
litics, because of which, such a struggle becomes even more
urgent and important.
Never before have foreign and internal reactionary forces in
India made the Geeta as powerful a weapon for attacking all
1 Gmn§ 33
progressive, rational and secular forces in the country as dur-
ing the last decade and more. One has only to glance through
the “Today’s Engagements” column of our daily press—Eng-
lish as well as all Indian languages—to realise the massive
scale on which Vedantic mysticism is being used for anti-na-
tional, retrogressive, reactionary, obscurantist purposes.
This is being done by various institutions—from the most
vulgar to the most respectable—but the end result is the same.
What the Rajneeshes and Bala Yogis do in a crude and re-
pugnant manner, the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan does in a schc-
Jarlv, sombre fashion. And the CIA does the back-seat driv-
ing for both.
The younger generation, educated as well as the rest, is -
being enmeshed in this net cf superstition and obscurantism on
a scale we would never have believed only twenty years ago.
Still further down the drain, the ideologues of Hindu com-
munalism also pick up the same weapon, Balraj Madhoks
Indianisation, Why, What and How? and Golwalkar’s Bunch
of Thoughts are sinister znd poisonous weapons which exploit
the Geeta, Vedantic idealism, “our ancient, spiritual civilisa-
tion” and what not for attacking the Muslims and Harijans,
Nehruism, Marxism, and anything and everything that is at all
progressive, rational, forward-looking and human.
The Indian bourgecisie needed the Geeta before independ:
ence as an ideological weapon in the struggle against imperial-
ism. After independence, and much more so with the deepen-
ing crisis of capitalism, with the rising tide of mass discontent,
they need it as a weapon against progress, democracy and
socialism.
The progressive, democratic, secular forces in the country,
and, above all, the Lefts, will, therefore, make a grave mistake |
if they ignore the problem of the Geeta as academic or “reli |
gious”. It has become a political problem of grave importance, ©
and hence, has to be faced for political, no less than ideologi-
cal reasons.
In the end, to remove all possible misunderstanding or mis-
interpretation, it may be clarified that it is not the position of
Marxism that masses of people having faith in the Geeta or
34
Vedanta will not participate in the struggle for socialism. Of
course, they will, No one “becomes a Marxist” before joining
the struggle for socialism. It is mainly through economic and
political struggles that the masses understand the relation be-
tween economics, politics, philosophy and religion. From Ve-
danta to Marxism is a long, arduous journey, and, to be frank,
a painful journey. It is not easy to break through the ideolo-
gical-cultural cocoon in which one has been nurtured since
one’s childhood. So, shoulder to shoulder, we fight with all
such people. We fight because we have a common enemy and
a common goal. The point is that the Geeta and Vedantic
idealism cannot become the ideological basis of the struggle
for socialism. And the masses have to be constantly educated
on that point. Dialectical and historical materialism, Marx-
ism-Leninism, alone can be the ideological and politica] guides
of the struggle for socialism.
35
BHAGAVAD-GITA AND OUR NATIONAL MOVEMENT
. —— -
ee aa SEE Nee ed BT
HAGAVAD-GiTa or the Song of God is taken to be the ex-
hortation delivered by Lord Krishna to Arjuna in the bat-
tlefield of Kurukshetra. The latter had refused to fight his
own kith and kin assembled in battle formation on the oppo-
site side and Gita in iis eighteen chapters (or adkayas) is the
lecture given by Krishna whereby Arjuna was ultimately con-
vinced and fought valiantly to win the war, as depicted in the
great epic Mahabharata.
Dr. S, Radhakrishnan, the savant-philosopher—more known
to us as India’s most reputed interpreter of Hinduism and the
Hindu way of life than the President of the Republic of India-—
says in a long-introductory essay to his translation of the Bha-
gavad-Gia into English that it “is more a religious classic than
a philosophic treatise.” Further, “the teaching of the Gita is
not presented as a metaphysical system thought out by an in-
dividual thinker or school of thinkers. It is set forth as a tra-
dition which has emerged from the religious life of mankind...
It represents not any sect of Hinduism but Hinduism as a
whole...” (S. Radhakrishnan, Bhggavad Gita, George Allen
& Unwin, India, p 12).
Aldous Huxley, introducing Gita to the Western audience
in an English translation jointly done by Swami Prabhavananda
and Christopher Isherwood (published by the New American
Library) says: “The Bhagavad-Gita occupies an intermediate
position between scripture and theology; for it combines the
The author is indebted to Prof Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya, Shri
Chinmohan Sehanavis, Shri S. G. Sardesai and Shri Sadhan Mukherjee
for helping in many ways in writing this article. The author is particularly
grateful to Comrade G. Adhikari who helped him throughout in putting
the whole thing in proper perspective. But Comrade G. Adhikari could
not live to see the publication of Bhagavad-Gita and Our National
Movement in # booklet form as he passed away, in November 1980.
39
poetical qualities of the first with the clear-cut methodicalness
of the second... it can be regarded as the focus of all Indian
religion... is also one of the clearest and most comprehensive
summaries of the Perennial Philosophy ever to have been made,
Heuce its enduring value, not only for Indians, but for all
mankind.”
In its original setting Gita is placed as eighteen chapters
(Chapters XXIII to XL) of the Bhisma-parvan of Mahabharata.
We do not know the name of the author'‘and opinions also
sharply differ as to when Bhagavad-Gita was first composed.
According to Dr. Radhakrishnan, “the Bhagavad Gita is later
than the great movement represented by the early Upanishads
and earlier than the period of the development of the philoso-
phic systems and their formulations in sutras. From its archaic
constructions and interna] references, we may infer that it is
definitely a work of the pre-Christian era. Its date may be
assigned to the fifth century s.c. though the text may have re-
ceived many alterations in subsequent times,” (Ibid, p 14).
Dr. D. D. Kosambi, the eminent scholar, scientist and Marx-
ist writer on some aspects of our ancient history, on the
other hand, in his Myth and Reality puts the period of its com-
position as sixth century a.p. on the basis of the fact that Gita
bases itself on the concept of Bhakti, that is, personal devo-
tion and surrender of one’s self. The concept of Bhakti, ac-
cording to Kosambi, is a reflection of the feudal order of so-
ciety demanding “the chain of personal royalty which binds
retainer to chief, tenant to lord, and baron to king or emperor.
Not loyalty in the abstract but with a secure foundation in
the means and relations of production: Jand ownership, mili-
tary service, tax-collection and the conversion of local produce
into commodities through the magnates, This system was cer-
tainly not possible before the end of the 6th century a.v. The
key word is samanta which till 532 at least meant ‘neighbour-
ing ruler’ and by 592 a.v. had come to mean feudal baron, The
new barons were personally responsible to the king, and part
of a tax-gathering mechanism.” (D. D. Kosambi, Myth and
Reality, Popular Prakashan, Bombay, 1962, p 31).
We need not dwell too much on these facts as our endeav-
our here will be confined mainly to trace the influence of
40
Bhagavad-Gita on our national movement and struggle for free-
denn from alien British rule, and to make an assessment also
of its effects today after independence, Its religious-cum-
spiritual aspect and various interpretations must be of relevance
to us to the extent that it helped to mould the thinking of some
of our national leaders,
Judged in this context, it was the novelist Bankim Chandra
Chattopadhyaya who was the first thinker of the modern
period in the nineteenth century to interpret Gita and seek
direct political inspiration from it. He was followed in due
course by Sri Aurobindo Ghosh, the sage of Pondicherry but
previously accused in the Maniktolla Bomb case of 1908, Bal
Gangadhar Tilak who wrote his Gita-Rahashyg in pencil dur-
ing his incarceration in Mandalay jail from 1908 onwards; and
Mahatma Gandhi who also made his own interpretation ot
Gita in course of a series of lectures to his Ashram inmates.
And it is with Gita in their hands that our early martyrs, Khu-
diram at the beginning of this century mounted the gallows.
There is no denying therefore its very great influence on our
national movement.
It may as well be pointed out at the very outset that a little
too much stress on ancient and medieval Hindu scriptures,
religious symbols, imagery and inspiration from them helped
to a certain extent to alienate other non-Hindu sections of the
population from the nationalist movement. This is particular-
ly and predominantly true of the Muslim section of the popu-
lation,
We may recall in this connection the long controversy in the
twenties and thirties of adopting ‘Bande Mataram’ (vow to the
Motherland) as a slogan. To the people of Islamic faith, the
entire imagery of Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyaya in intro-
ducing Bande-Mataram through the pages of his novel Anan-
da Math and its Bhowani-Mandir (temple of Bhowani, an in-
carnation of the goddess Kali) was unacceptable, almost
sacrilegious and certainly ran counter to their faith.
What is equally interesting to note is that the Muslims found
their inspiration from the teachings of Koran, Hadis and other
scriptures to fight against the alien British rule. This is a se-
parate subject by itself and outside our scope here.
41
We must record that in the twenties, two national] revolu-
tionaries, Ram Prasad Bismil and Asfaqullah, mounted ‘he gal-
lows on the same day with a copy of Gita and Koran respec-
tively in their hands.
It is sometimes held that Indian nationalism found — its
strength and even expression because the then educated elite
society of India was taught by the British rulers to read the
advanced democratic bourgeois thoughts of the nineteenth cen-
tury. This is untenable. The point is that as India was
awakening to a sense of nationhood to which the advanced
bourgeois thoughts of the nineteenth century did make their
contribution, it had to assert its national prestige; it was a
search for national identity. And in that struggle for national
self-expression it was often the case that the early Indian na-
tionalists had to fling it before their foreign rulers who denied
them a national status that they represented a superior and
much more ancient tradition of civilisation. It was not unus-
ual therefore to come across startling statements of a stark re-
vivalist nature from men of such giant intellectual stature like
a Lokmanya Tilak or a Mahatma Gandhi who often had no
hesitation in ascribing anything ‘foreign’ as un-Hindu or against
true nationalism.
The Indian educated middle class therefore in their quest of
freedem and self-expression which was denied to them by the
British colonial order would, had they been “educated only
in the Sanskrit Vedas, in monastic seclusion from every other
current of thought...have assuredly found in the Sanskrit Vedas
the inspiring principles and slogans of their struggle.” (R.
Plame Dutt, India Today, Manisha Granthalaya, Calcutta, 1970
edition, p, 303).
It is long overdue therefore that an attempt be made to in-
terpret Bhagavad-Gita from a Marxist standp>int bearing in
mind its immense role in our national movement, as also its
tremendous patronage now by India’s foremost monopolist
house, the Birlas who spend millions of rupees throughout the
year to organise Gita-yagnas and the like.
We can just as well put across our main contention here
which is: Gita which provided one of the main ideological
ly
fa
7
bases of our national movement in its early phase, when the
class question and class struggle had not yet appeared or be-
come a major factor in the Indian arena of the national strug-
gle for freedom, becomes a weapon in the hands of reaction
and is patronised by the Indian monopoly houses today precise-
ly for its teaching of class stability and class oppression. This is
developed throughout Gita in its conception of Swadharma, its
preaching of niskama karma and the theory of indestructibility
of soul, the transmigration of soul through a succession of
births and its call to set up a dharma-raj by destroying all that
is gdharma and for which an avatar will appear as the situa-
tion demands. All these acted as a double-edged weapon.
But to develop this point, we have to go through even if in a
short compass some of its actual teachings and particularly the
commentaries on them by our patriotic nationalist leaders.
43
HE COMMENTARY Of Sankara (788 a.p.-820 a.p.) is the most
ancient of the existing ones. To him Reality or Brahman
is one without a second. The entire manifest world, unless
realised as the expression of the Supreme Being, reduces itself
to maya and is the product of avidya. To be liberated from it
is the work of jnana, which when realised in its fulness, is
also the negation of karma. Sankara holds that while karma
is essential as a means for the purification of the mind, when
jnana is attained, karma ceases. He rejects the view of jnana-
karma-samuccaya, that is, a synthesis of the two.
To the nationalist thinkers seeking India’s liberation from
foreign rule and in their assertion of a national identity which
was sought to be denied by oppressive colonial rule—this was
particularly Bankim Chandra’s problem when the question of
political liberation was yet to appear as a realisable objective—
Sankara’s Jnana-bad was found to be too negative and leading
to passivity. This was somewhat dodged by dividing jnana
into two aspects: sawtya and tamas, and since the predilection
was likely to be a taumasic interpretation of jnana, Bankim
Chandra, Swami Vivekananda and Tilak insisted on the karma-
yoga, that is, the rajasik aspect.
Thus Bankim Chandra with his insistence on Anushilan that
is, cultivation of the body and mind (note, both of body and
mind, not that of mind only) through karma actually helped
to provide the very name, “Anushilan Samity” to the first
group of Indian revolutionaries, some of whom faced the gal-
lows, others untold suffering and incarceration in jails and in
the Andamans, including Barin Ghose, Ullaskar Dutt and
others.
Another batch of Indian revolutionaries who also believed
in armed actions against the British rule—all of these usually
called the ‘terrorists’, a derogatory term coined by the British
44
“NF
rulers and therefore unacceptable to us—was directly inspired
by Tilak who writing his Gita-Rahashya in Mandalay jail gives
its full title as Gita-Rahashya or Karma-Yoga Sastra, It was
translated into Bengali directly from Marathi by Jyotirindra-
nath Tagore, poet Rabindranath’s elder brother in 1925 and
now reprinted again in 1970. There is no doubt that with all
its euphemistic and sometimes aesopian language, Tilak’s Gita-
Rahashya in its main appeal is an exhortation to karma, and
niskama karma at that, done by a sthita-pragyma that is, by
somebody who is unaffected by the ups and downs of life, but
a karma directed towards the liberation of the motherland. We
can recall in this connection Tilak’s famous statement in court
in defence of his fiery articles in Kesari for which he was being
prosecuted and sent to jail for six years in Burma: “Swaraj
is my birthright and I mean to have it!”
Swami Vivekananda, the saint-philosopher, who died in 1902,
preached very directly what he called rajasik dharma, that is,
to cultivate the strength of body without which one cannot
acquire strength of mind, He interpreted Gita as a source of
strength. This is how he spoke at San Francisco on May
29, 1900:
There is only one sin. That is weakness. When I was a
boy I read Milton’s Paradise Lost. The only good man I
had any respect for was Satan. The only saint is that soul
that never weakens, that faces every thing, and determines
to die game... Stand up and die game... All weakness, all
bondage is imagination, Speak one word to it, it must
vanish, Do not weaken: There is no other way out... Stand
up and be strong: No fear. No superstition. Face the
truth as it is. If death comes—that is the worst of our mise-
ries—let it come: We are determined to die game. That
is all the religion I know... (Thoughts on Gita, published
by Advaita Ashrama, 1978, pp 73-74).
Sri Aurobindo in his Essays on Gita, with all his emphasis on
Yoga, also reverts back to karma. Instead of going into all the
intricacies of Sri Aurobindo’s mystical language certainly not
meant for the common man, it will be easier and better to
quote Dilip Kumar Roy, Aurobindo’s foremost disciple. Dilip
Kumar Roy in his introduction to his beautifully poetic trans-
45
lation of Gitu (published by Hind Pocket Book, 1977, poses the
question by quoting Gita’s Chapter IV, Sloka 37 which is:
“As the fire which is kindled turns its fuel to ashes, O Arjuna,
even so does the fire of wisdom (that is, jnana) turn to ashes all
work (karma), and then comments:
But this is not tle correct way to interpret the Gita’s teach-
ing nor the best way to profit by its serene harmonious
wisdom as has been pointed out by Sri Aurobindo in his
masterly Essays on Gita in which he has hailed Gita’s gos-
pel as essentially a synthesis, that is a triune path reconcil-
ing with marvellous profundity the three approaches of
jnana, bhakti and karma... (p 30}.
é
Bhakti to him is utter devotion in doing karma without
questioning or awaiting results, that is, niskuna karma through
which therefore jnana is attained, which jnana is not tamasic,
that is, not leading to passivity but sawtyic, that is, a kind ot
supreme realisation and knowledge. We are here not really
concerned with the philosophic connotation and many inter-
pretations of sawtya, rajas and tama gunas except to note that
through this differentiation of two kinds of jnang, the essential
emphasis is on the karma aspect of it. In other words, it is
through karma that you attain jnana.
46
ANKIM CHANDRA CHATTOPADHYAYA had produced two book-
lets Dharma-tawtya and Srimat-Bhagavadgita in which he
first developed the concept of Anushilan, that is, cultivation of
body and mind.
In Dharma-tawtya which is in the form of a dialogue between
the guru and the sisya (pupil), questions are posed in the form
of four consecutive chapter headings, namely, ‘What is dukha?’,
‘What is sukha?’, “What is dharma?’ and ‘What is manushiwa-
tyu?’—and the answer is provided by the filth which is Anu-
shilan, The argumentation is in a Way quite simple and certain-
lv very logical though we have also to note its inherent con-
tradictions.
Dukha (sorrow) and sukha (happiness) are due to violations
or otherwise of the natural brittwi, Bankim has translated the
word brittwi as “faculty” but seems to be not very happy
about it. In our opinion the main connotation of this brittwi
is developed further by Bankim Chandra as ‘vocation’ or ca-
pacity to carry out one’s vocation ordained by his own station
in life. And herein lies the root of social conservatism, Gita
accepts this, when in defining what is karma it is laid down in
Gita that it is the fulfilment of one’s own swadharma which is
the basis of karma.
This swadharma is not ‘religion’ in the accepted sense of the
term. This swadharma is anushilan (or cultivation) of the
faculty or vocation (that is, briftwi), determined to a person
both by his birth and station in life.
This is how Bankim Chandra defines it and we shall give it
here in almost Jiteral translation:
The aim of this part of Gita is to prove the essential need
for cultivating swadharma. If we say swadharma, the edu-
cated community (in Bankim’s time it was no doubt the
English-knowing section of the population only—DB)
47
may find it difficult to grasp its meaning. Hence if we use
the word (that is, swadhearma—DB) in its English equiva-
lent as ‘Duty’ (and Bankim puts it in English alphabet
as such—DB), there should be no further problem. The
aim of Gita of this part is: to prove the essential need for
implementing that Duty. Every man does not have the same
kind of swadharma—to some it is punishing others, to
others swadharma is to pardon (others), It is the duty of
the soldier to wound the enemy, the swudharma of the
doctor is to treat the wounded, Man has manifold jobs to
do, and his swadharme correspond to that, But of all the
swadharmas, to wage war is the most heinous of all. If one
can avoid war, it is not the task (kartabya) of anyone to do
it. But a situation arises when his heinous act becomes
inevitable and essential. A Timur Lang or a Nadir Shah
is coming to bum and loot your country. Under such
circumstances anyone who knows how to fight, to him
waging war becomes inevitable and essential swadherma.
(Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyaya, Works, Vol, I, “Srimad-
Bhagavadgita”, p 717).
Is it not evident that “if one can avoid war, it is not the
kartabya of anyone to do it’? But then Bankim Chandra ex-
horts a person to wage what may be called a dharma-yuddha
or a just war, If one reads for Timur Lang or Nadir Shah the
British colonial rulers, the true meaning of Bankim Chandra’s
exhortation becomes clear. And he is quite unambiguous about
it when in that dialogue between guru and the sisya (pupil) in
the last concluding portion after the pupil has recounted what
he has learnt, the guru finally adds the stricture: “Do not forget
that on top of all dharma is love of one’s country.” (Ibid, p 671).
We have already said that this conception of swadl:arina is
the very root of sucia] conservatism. This is further strengthen-
ed by the following sloka (IV, 13): Chaturcarnyam maya srstam
gunakarmavibhagasah... (The fourfold order was created by
Me according to the divisions of quality and work—Radha-
krishnan’s translation.)
And the very next two lines after the above is even more
explicit: tasyg kartaram api mam viddhy akartaram avyayam
48
(Though I am its creator, know Me to be incapable of action or
change).
Therefore while Lord Krishna takes the entire responsibility
on himself of having created these four varnas as the rigid
division of labour according to the qualitv of work, in other
‘words it is supposed to be divinely ordained, even Lord Krishna
pleads his inability to change it himself,
Sri Aurobindo has accepted this rigid cas‘e division of labour
and justifies it very frankly as:
There are thus four kinds of works, the werk of religious
ministration, letters, learning and knowledge, the work of
government, politics, administration and war; the work of
production, wealth-making and exchange; the work of
hired labour and service. And endeavour was made to found
and stabilise the whole arrangement of society on the parti-
tion of these four functions among four clearly marked
classes. (Dilip Roy, Gita—A Revelation, in which he quotes
Sri Aurobindo, p 35, emphasis mine.)
It is, however, a little difficult for Dilip Roy to accept this
‘without reservation. He therefore argues in the following pages
‘that “while men are not born equal” etc. he poses the question
whether “the Gita’s is a gospel meant only for the elect as against
the common man”. He provides the answer in a way through
his conception of yoga—samata that is, ‘equality’ as ‘the essence
of yoga’, so much so that ‘an asnirant cannot win to the status
of seerhood till he has grown to see with an equal eye the
leamed and modest Brahmin, the cow, the elephant, the dog
and the outcast’. (V. 18),
A man of common clav must be nardoned for his inability
to follow Dilin Rov to these rarefied heights of spiritual reason-
ing, And in return we mav also be permitted to quote from
Gite III, 25 where it is said:
sreyan svadharma vigunah
paradharmat stwanusthitat
swadharme nidhanam sreyah
paradharmo bhayavahah. (Better is one’s own law though
imperfectly carried out than the law of another carried out per-
6-4 49
fectly. Better is death in (the fulfilment of) of one’s own law, for
to follow another’s law is perilous—Radhakrishnan’s translation.)
Only we will respectfully submit svadharmo is not ‘law’ as
Radhakrishnan here puts it. We must also quote in this connec-
tion another verse, XVIII, 48—this is almost at the end of Gita,.
where Lord Krishna says:
sahajam karma kaunteya
sadosam apina tyajet
sarvarambha hi dosena
dhumenagnir va vrtah. (One should not give up his work.
suited to one’s nature, O son of Kunti, though it may be defective,.
for all enterprises are clouded bv defects as fire by smoke),
And all this is finally summed up, as it were, by XVIII, 66,
the very last verse of Lord Krishna’s teaching when the Lord.
says:
Sarvadharman parityajya
mam ekam saranam craja
aham tva sarvapapebhyo
moksayisyami masucah. (Abandoning all duties, come to:
Me alone for shelter. Be not grieved for I shall release thee from:
all evils—Radhakrishnan’s translation).
The above three verses along with the others we have quoted
before lays down in full what is meant by swadharma, that 1s,.
task or duty determined by one’s caste or vatna which is un-
changeable and the fulfilment of which duty through niskenur
karma, that is, work done without awaiting or expecting any’
results is the way to mokhsa or salvation according to Gita, It
is evident that this laying down of a soldier-like discipline
(theirs not to reason why etc.) could certainly provide a suitable’
weapon for the early or non-class phase of the national move~
ment but can in time also act as a tool for social conservatism
and an ideological base for class stability and class harmony.
It is to be said that even Dilip Roy with his efforts to solve
all contradictions through yoga could not quite stomach this
rigid caste division and says: “...the modern mind cannot help’
but feel repelled in particular by the heartless exploitation of
50
the have-nots of the lower caste, the sudrus.” (Dilip Roy, Ibid,
p 39).
Swami Vivekananda never accepted this caste division.
Throughout in his teachings and utterances, he not only casti-
gated against the caste system but also said in a startling state-
ment that after the rule by the Brahmins, that is, the elite—
the kind of philosopher-kings of Plato—came the rule of the
Kshatriyas, the rule of the powerful, and that while the present
ruling class are the Vaisyas that is, the merchants (or one could
say the capitalists), the future belongs to the rule of the sudras,
the rule by the downtrodden,
This swwadharma is to be performed by not awaiting for or
expecting any results. The ofi-quoted II, 47 bears repetition:
Karmany eva ‘dhikaras te
ma phalesu kadacana
ma karmaphalahetur bhur
ma te sango ‘stu akarmani, (To ac‘icn alone has thou a
right and never at all to its fruits; let not the fruits of action
be thy motive; neither let there be in thee any attachmeni to:
inacticn—Radhakrishnan’s translation).
This niskama karma is to be performed by a person who is
stitha-prugma, (vide II, 55 and 56) that is, by one who “puts
all the desires of his mind... whose mind is untroubled in the
midst of sorrows and is free from eager desire amid pleasures,
he from whom passion, fear and rage have passed away, he is
called a sage of settled intelligence.” (Ibid)
Now to note the contradictions further in this teaching of
niskama karma. If one were to follow the slokas from III, 8
to 16, one would tend to conclude that Lord Krishna is speak-
ing in justification of sacrificial rites performed in yagnas. Bul
he reverts back to the conception of a stithu-pragma doing nis-
kama karma from III, 17 to 19 of which the last one may be
quoted: “...without attachment, perform always the work that
has to be done, for man attains to the highest by doing work
without attachment.”
But there is a further glaring contradiction which occurs be-
fore the famous sloka of II, 47. This is the sloka II, 37 which
runs as follows:
5k
hato va prapsyasi svargam
jitva va bhoksyase mahim
tusmad uttistha kaunteya
yuddhaya krtaniscayah. (Either slain thou shalt go to
heaven,: or victorious thou shalt enjoy the earth; therefore
arise, O son of Kunti, resolved on battle).
This is certainly not niskama karma. Lord Krishna is hold-
ing out a bait for Arjuna that he is the winner in the end
whether he wins the battle or gets killed (reminds cne of the
adage: ‘Head I win, tail you lose’).
Bankim Chandra noted the contradiction, According to him,
the slokas II, 34 to 36 belong to an interior set of ideas where
Krishna seems to have cautioned Arjuna against Lok-ninda that
is, public censure or the danger of losing one’s popularity. He
hastens to add that this cannot be true dharma but “in our
modern society dharina is so weak in its appeal that very often
it is the fear of incurring public censure that takes the place
of (practising) dharma.” (Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyaya,
Works, Vol I, p 728).
Bankim Chandra also makes it quite clear that in his opinion
these four slokas from II, 33 to 37 are interpolated in the text
<f Gita after Sankara’s interpretation in the ninth century.
52
CG COULD INSPIRE our fighters for national freedom also
because of its teaching of soul as the indestructible one.
As the body changes form like one discards a worn-cut gar-
ment and puts on a new one, the soul remains eternal, The
entire set of slokas from II, 11 to 30 propounds this concept
of indestructibility of the soul through various forms and me-
taphors, only one of which (II, 20) may be quoted here:
na jayate mriyate va kadacin
na yam bhiutva bhacita va na bhuyah
ajo nityah sasvato yam purano
na hanyate hanyamane sarire. (He is never born, nor does
he die at any time, nor having (once) come to be will he
again cease to be. He is unborn, eternal, permanent and pri-
meval. He is not slain when the body is slain).
This conception of the indestructibility of the soul is borrow-
ed in Gita from Katho-Upanishad, II, 18 and also Chandogya-
Upanishad speaks along the same lines,
One may couple with this the theory of transmigration of
soul (janmantar-bad) which is implicit in Hinduism and Hindu
religion. This theory of transmigration of the soul was incor-
porated into Buddhism by Mahaian after the second century
a.D. This is how Bankim Chandra puts it in his booklet, Srimad
Bhagavadgita:
The first thesis of Gita is the indestructibility of the soul.
While the indestructibility of the soul is the first thesis of
Hindu religion, transmigration of the soul is its second... This
transmigration of the soul is very strong in Hindu religion.
Hindu religion as per Upanishad. as per Gita, as per Puranas,
or as per its philosophy, every kind of Hindu religion is based
on it. As pearls are strung in a bead through strings, simi-
5
larly this theory (that is, transmigration of soul) is linked
through this string.” (Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyaya, Works,
Vol. I, pp 701ff, literal translation).
No doubt it is the indestructibility of the soul and the
theory of its transmigration through a succession of births
which inspired a Khudiram to mount the gallows with a copy
of Gita in his hand, and we can fondly recall Khudiram’s fare-
well song in this connection Ebar bidae de ma, ghure asi (Bid
me now goodbye, O dear Mother, I will come back again),
Of extreme relevance in this context is to see what the in-
famous Rowlatt Committee Report (1918) has to say on the
influence of Bhagwad-Gita on the national movement. As we
know the report given under the name of its chairman, S, A. T.
Rowlatt was almost entirely based on the facts compiled by
James Cambell Kerr, 1cs, now available as Politicul Trouble in
India, 1907-17, published by Editions Indian, Calcutta.
It is interesting to note also that “while Mr. Rowlatt public-
ly thanked all who appeared before the committee ...the only
person he did not thank was James Campbell Kerr... it was
not possible because... Politicul Trouble in India, 1907-17 was
a secret and confidential work...” (Preface by Mahadev Prasad
Saha).
Let us now quote from the book itself:
“Dayananda, the Theosophists, Vivekananda, Sister Nivedita
and all that followed them talked in the wildest and most ex-
travagant way in praise of Hinduism and in condemnation of
Christianity and the West so that they actually led the aver-
age educated Hindu to believe the doctrine, that everything
Western is materialistic, sensual, devilish. I do not believe
that these leaders had any sinister political motive for this po-
licy.” (p xiv).
There is a whole chapter in this Political Trouble in India,
1907-17, entitled “The Literature and the Revolution.”
In this chapter the most prominent place has been ascribed
to ‘The Bhagwad Gita and Chandi’, “Works of Bankim Chandra
Chattopadhyaya’, his novel Anunda Math etc. Similarly, tke
54
‘whole conception of ‘Bhowani Mandir’ was developed as a
pamphlet by Sri Aurobindo Ghosh, later the sage of Pondi-
cherry, but then the fire-brand revolutionary, a first class classic
scholar of Oxford University and one of the foremost accused
in the Muraripukur-Maniktolla bomb case of 1908, It is quoted
in detail. We can only quote here the main point: Bhawani,
another name for goddess Durga, is described as Shakti—“in
the present age, the Mother is manifested as the mother of
Strength. She is pure Shakti.” (p 32). Our knowledge, accor-
ding to Sri Aurobindo, or Jnang “stored and accumulated since
‘the race began” of many thousands of years is “now weighed
down with a heavy load of tamas, lies under the curse of im-
potence and inertia.” India is equated to Shakti: “it is a mighty
shekti, composed of the shaktis of all the millions of units that
make up the nation...”
It is easy to see that from this conception of Jnanu, Karma
and Bhukti—Karma tto Shakti i.e, utter dedication without
awaiting or expecting any results and through unquestioning
obedience or Bhakti leads to strength or Shakti and from which
teal Jnana or Sawtya Jnana is evolved—this was made the ideo-
logical basis of those first generation of national revolutionaries,
miscalled ‘terrorists’. But there is no escaping the fact that
this strong imprint of Hindu religious conception helped to
alienate the followers of Islam,
In a sub-section entitled “The Bhagwad Gita and Chandi’
James Campbell Kerr first notes that 17 copies of the Gita
‘were found in the Dacca Anushilan Samiti, with four copies of
Chandi, and three copies of the Gita were found in the Mani-
ktolla garden,
The three aspects of Bhaguvad-Gits were particularly stres-
‘sed: (i) the soul is indestructible (Na Hanvate Hanyamane
Sarire etc.), (ii) the conception of the ideal man as one who is
sthitu-pragma i.e. “one whose heart is not agitated in the midst
of calamities, who has no longing for pleasures and from whom
affection, fear and wrath have departed is called a sage of
‘steady mind” and of course the whole concepticn of karma and
niskama karma at that,
Kerr points out that the Bengali paper ‘Jugantar’ (1908 with
35
Bhupendranath Dutt, Swami Vivekananda’s younger brother
as its editor) carried on its front page as its motto a quota‘ion
from Gita:
paritranaya sadhunam
vinasaya ca duskritram
dharmasamsthapanarthaya
sambhavami “yuge-yuge” (IV. 8).
We can also refer to the previous sloka (IV. 7):
Yada-yada hi dharmasya
glanir bhavati bharata
abhyut thanam adharmasya
tadatmanam srjamy aham.
The British colonial rule is adharma-raj, Lord Krishna's
exhortation to Arjuna that “whenever there is a decline of
righteousness and rise of unrighteousness... then I send forth
(create, incarnate myself)” and “for the protection of the good,
for the destruction of the wicked, and for the establishment of
righteousness, I come into being from age to age” (Dr, Radha-
krishnan’s translation) is easily interpreted as a call to over-
throw that adharma-raj, the rule of unrighteousness. And the
fight is to be waged through karma without questioning and
awaiting for any results, i.e. niskama karma performed by 2
true soldier of the revolution (‘there’s not to question why’ sort
of conception—the motto of the rising bourgeoisie) and in which
the soul being indestructible, one can give away one’s life like
changing one’s own old garments for a new one.
Kerr also points out that when Anushilan Samity was formed
in 1908 (the name ‘Anushilan’ was borrowed from Bankier
Chandra Chattopadhyava as we have noted) in Benares, the
title later changed to ‘Young Men's Association’ to avoid undue
attention, of the police, “the Scciety contained an inner circle,
consisting of those who were fully initiated into its real objects
and sedition was mainly taught through a so-called moral class
in which Bhagwat-Gita was so interpreted as to furnish a justi-
fication for assassination”. (p 343—we ignore Kerr’s language—
DB).
We can also mention that in the initiation of a young man
56
to revolutionary work he had to take a vow before the goddess
Kali with a sword and a ccpy of Gita in his hands.
% * *
Last but not least in this line of interpretation of Bhagavad-
gita was the series of lectures given by Mahatma Gandhi to the
inmates of his Ashram in Ahmedabad from February 24 to
November 27, 1926, collected now as a book by Orient Paper-
backs.
To Mahatma Gandhi, the apostle of non-violence, the pro-
blem was how ‘o interpret Gita which is patently a call to
armed action, an exhortation to Arjuna who like a true votary
of non-violence had initially given up his gandiva bow and re-
fused to fight, Mahatma Gandhi resolves this dilemma at the
very outset by interpreting the battlefield of Kurukhesira as
“our body”: “The poet-seer who knows from experience the
prcblems of life, has given a faithful account of the conflict
which is eternally going on within us, Sri Krishna is the lord
dwelling in everyone’s heart who is ever murmuring. His.
promptings in a pure chitia (that is, conscious mind—DB) like
a clock ticking in a room. If the clock of the chitta is not
wound up with the key of _ self-purification, the in-swelling.
Lord no doubt remains, where He is, but the tickling is heard
no more.” (p 14).
Mahatma Gandhi also makes it clear that non-violence is to
be practised only by a szitha-pragma; otherwise “I do not wish
to suggest that violence has no place at all in the teaching of
the Gita. The dharma which it teaches does not mean that a
person who has not yet awakened to the truth of non-violence
may act like a coward. Anyone who fears others, accumulates
possessions and indulges in sense-pleasures will certainly fight
with violent means, but violence does not, for that reason, be-
come justified as his dharma...” (p 14).
Be that as it may, Mahatma Gandhi also accepts the con--
ception of Dharma as swadharma mentioned earlier by saying :
“Arjuna had said that he did not want even the kingdom of
gods if he had to kill his kith and kin for that. But he is bound,
in any case to kill them, for he has accepted the dharma which
requires him to kill.” (p 32, emphasis mine),
One would like to pose the counter-question to Gandhiii
57
himself: “But it is you who taught us the use of the weapon
of passive resistance if one’s conscience does not permit an
action?”
But Mahatma Gandhi goes on expounding this conception
of dharma or swadharma as doing one’s duty determined ac-
cording to one’s station in life. He says a few pages later: “To
speak the truth is a dharma common to all. But there are spe-
cial duties, that is, duties which pertain to individuals. Sup-
pose that one’s job is to clean lavatories. Such a person
should not envy another whose job is to keep accounts. The
man who cleans lavatories as carefully as he does the u‘eusils
in his home observes his diiarma in the truest manner. It
would not be right for Arjuna to think of retiring to a forest
and spending his days telling beads on the rosary. His duty
was ‘o fight and kill, Retiring to a forest may be the right
course for a rishi, it was not so for Arjuna.”
Incidentally this attitude of Mahatma Gandhi will also help
to explain the paradox in his theory of non-violence. One such
glaring instance is when he refused to support the cause of the
Garhwali soldiers in the midst of the stormy 19380 Civil Diso-
bedience Movement who had refused to fire on unarmed crowd
in Peshawar.
Later in 1932 at the time of his stay in London for the Round
Table Conference, he was pointedly asked about it by Charles
Petrasch, correspondent of the French paper, Monde (February
20, 1932). His reply stems from this approach of swadh«arma-
_palana as per Gita mentioned above. This is what he said:
“A soldier who disobeys an order to fire breaks the oath
which he has taken and renders himself guilty of criminal diso-
bedience. I cannot ask officials and soldiers to disobey: for
when I am in power, I shall in all likelihood make use cf those
same officials, and those same soldiers. If I taught them to
disobey I should be afraid that they might do the same when I
am in power.” (Quoted by R. Palme Dutt in India Today,
Manisha Granthalaya, Calcutta, p 369).
Mahatma Gandhi interprets bhakti iu even simpler terms.
‘Quoting IV. 11, we give here Gandhiji’s translation: “In what-
‘ever way men resort to Me, even so do I render to them. In
every day, O Partha, the path men follow is Mine.”
-58
He then comments: “In other words, people reap as they
sow. As the quality of your bhakti, so is its reward. If there is
yany motive behind your bhakti if you seek anything through
it, you will get what the quality of your bhakti entitles you to,
You will get not what you wish to get, but you deserve to get”.
-(p 119).
=m
Having said the above, Gandhiji then refers to his contro-
versy with Tilak which is of great interest and bears quoting
in full:
‘Everyone follows a path which leads to me’, This verse
has a history behind it. When Tilak Maharaj was alive, he
had cited this verse in the course of a discussion about
violence and non-violence. I had argued that we should
bear with a person who might have slapped us. In reply,
he cited this verse to prove that the Gita upheld the
principle of ‘tit for tat’. That is, he should act towards a
person as he acts towards us. I cling to the reply which
I gave to him then. I had argued that this verse could not
be used in support of his contention, We should not act
towards a person as he acts towards us. If he is bad to us,
we may not therefore be bad to him, This verse merely
lays down God’s law (p 120).
As far as we are concerned there is a basic unity between the
two positions of Tilak and Géndhiji in so far as both interpreted
the foreign colonial rule as an anathema and against God’s law,
while the particular method of fighting may be a little different
arising perhaps out of the temperamental] difference of the two
giants of our national movement.
Rabindranath Tagore however was never impressed or in-
fluenced by Gita. In his whole voluminous corpus of writings
‘while he quotes copiously from Upanishads and is influenced
very greatly by simple forms of Bhakti in its various manifesta-
tions, he usually adopted the attitude of a lover to his beloved
or an identification of his self with his jihan-devata (lile-deity)
but hardly that of a son to his mother (the Kali cult of mother-
worship), the only oblique reference to Gita is worth referring
‘to,
39
In 1832 when he had just passed 70, he went to Iran (then |
called Persia) at the Royal invitation, and he wrote about it in |
a booklet named In Persia (Rabindra-Rachanabali, Vol. XXII,
p 433 ff.) He had to go by air and this was his first long trip by
air (he had undertaken previously one short trip from London
to Paris). He records at length his journey by air and his ob-
servations of an air journey when the planes flew at a much
lower height is very interesting, The relevant portions we are ‘
giving here in almost literal translation:
zz
...The Earth which I knew for its variety and certainty
(namely, it is there—DB) through its many testimonies be-
came thin (or tenuous) and its three dimensional reality
gradually started reducing itself to what was a two-dimen-
sional photograph... It seems to me that in this position
when man emerges from the plane to rain down a hundred-
killer (a sataghni—that is, furious destruction by bombs
which can kill hundreds at a time, how small this figure is
in terms of today’s atem and hydrogen bombs—DB) he can
be mercilessly furious. He suffers from no sense of the
enormity of the crime which can make his raised hand
tremble in hesitation to do it because the actual computa-
tion of figures (in terms of figures of destruction—DB) gets
lost or vanishes. When the reality to which man has a
natural affinity gets blurred, then the receptacle of his affec-
tion also disappears. The tenets and teuchings of Gita is
such a kind of ‘aeroplane’—the mind of Arjuna tender with
mercy was taken ito such a height from where one could
not discern who is the killer and who is the killed, who is
your kith and kin and tho is your stranger. Man has in its
armoury many such ‘aeroplanes’ made of theories to cover
up reality in his policies of imperialism (or aggrandise--
ment), in social and religious principles, From there (that is,
basing oneself on these principles—DB) the only consola-
tion a man has when destruction descends on him is—“na
hanvate hanvamane sarire” (that is, the soul cannot be kill-
ed—Gita’s sloka, II. 20). (emphasis mine).
The reader will no doubt note the sarcastic reference to this
sloka of Gita.
60
[: WILL BE interesting to trace the elements of the main
thoughts in the present-day school of Hindu revivalist
thinking as represented by M. S. Golwalkar and RSS in
his Bunch of Thoughts.° He published this in a bock form first
‘in 1966 which ran into several reprints. In May 1980, a second
jevised and enlarged edition has been published. The criginal
“edition had also an Introduction by M. A. Venkuta Rao to
whom the book is dedicated. Of its 38 chapters running into
683 pages we can but quote here only a small portion and that
also in relation to our main contention, viz. how Bhagavad-
Gita provides one of the main kernels of this modern version of
Hindu revivalist thoughts,
' Hindus, to Golwalkar, constitute the nation residing in
“the sacred motherland of India and ‘hey alone are the en-
jightened ones, the rest being mlecl:has. Incidentally, one
«ould easily come across a similar statement from the
Blamic revivalist thought which holds everybody else
‘xcept a true Mussalman as the kafir. Intense nationalistic arro-
gance and a good deal of racial hatred are preached thus:
E .We built a great civilisation, a great culture and an unique
social order. We had brought into actual life almost everything
that was beneficial to mankind. Then the rest of humanity was
just bipeds and so no distinctive name was given to us. Some-
times, in trying to distinguish our people from others, we were
called “the enlightened’—the Aryas—and_ the rest Mlechhas.”
°“The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) was started in 1925 on
the day of Vijyadashami, The founder, revered Dr, Keshav Baliram
Hedgewar, passed away in 1940. Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar pcpularly
known as Guruji—has been the chief of the organisation since then”.
‘trom the Preface to the First Edition).
“Sri Golwalkar is no more. But his thoughts are with us” (a nota by
the Publishers dated 15 January, 1980),
\
/ 61
(Bunch cf Thoughts, second revised edition, p 73). (Emphasis
mine).
Historically, this would be quite untenable. First, there was.
a lot of inter-marriages between the Indo-Aryans and _ other .
sections of the population. Second, the non-Aryans were initi-
ally called the ‘Yavans’, really another name for the Greeks,
some of whom were later absorbed into the texture of ancient
Indian society,
To proceed. “Our concept of Hindu Nation is not a mere_
bundle of political] and economic rights. It is essentially cul-
tural. Our ancient and sublime cultural values of life form its.
life-breath.” (Ibid, p 43). But this culture is to be felt only and
cannot often be defined.
Then the real point is made which is division into castes and
which as we have seen was propounded by Lord Krishna to:
Arjuna in Gita (chaturcarna maya srastam etc.) Says Golwal-.
kar: |
“The Hindu people... is the Virat Purusha, the Almighty
manifesting himself.” Then from the Purusha Sukta is quoted.
‘Brahmin is the head, King the hands, Vaishya the thighs and
Shudra the feet’. Golwalkar comments: “This means that the
people who have this fourfold arrangement, ie. the Hindw’
people, is our God.” Further, “this supreme vision of Godhead.
in society is the very core of our concept of ‘nation’ and has
permeated our thinking and given rise to various unique cone"
cepts of our cultural heritage.” (pp 48-49).
Golwalkar does not mince matters. He is blunt and always
to the point. He therefore goes on further propounding Hindw- ,
ism as the basis of Indian nationhood as follows: ,
“The other main feature that distinguished our society was
the Varna-cyavastha. But today it is being dubbed ‘casteism’
and scoffed at. Our people have come to feel that the mere
mention of Varna-vyavastha is something derogatory. Ther
often mistake the social order implied in it for social discrimir-
ation.” (pp 142-43). 5
So we are to believe that there is no social discrimination not
62
-
to say stark terror and repression in the name of this caste dis--
tinction. Let us see how he proceeds:
“The feeling of inequality, of high and low, which has crept
into the Varna system, is COMPARATIVELY OF RECENT ORIGIN. The
perversion was given a further fillip by the scheming Britisher
in line with his ‘divide and rule’ policy. But IN ITS ORIGINAL
FORM, THE DISTINCTIONS IN THAT SOCIAL ORDER DID NOT IMPLY
ANY DISCRIMINATION SUCH AS BIG AND SMALL, HIGH AND LOW,
AMONG ITS CONSTITUENTS. ON THE OTHER HAND GITA TELLS US THAT”
THE INDIVIDUAL WHO DOES HIS ASSIGNED DUTIES IN LIFE IN A
SPIRIT OF SELFLESS SERVICE ONLY WORSHIPS GOD THROUGH SUCH
PERFORMANCE.” (all small caps mine, p 148).
The British imperialist rule undoubtedly exploited our caste:
division to further their policy of ‘divide and rule’. But is this
varna system based on discrimination only of recent origin?
What about the story of Sambuka in Ramayana and the fate of
Karna who was denied training by Drona in Mahabharata? And
then Gita undoubtedly tells us that the individual must per--
form his duties according to his station in life—the essence of
Gita’s conception of Karma and swadharma-palana.
Golwalkar not only justifies the whole chaturvarna system:
as the basis of Hinduism, indeed he is quite logical in this in
his Jights and we don’t grudge him that, but what is of further:
interest to us here is that he extends it to the concept of Hindu
as the only national in India and in doing so has to stress even
more its socially conservative role, So in page 156 under a sub-
heading, ‘A Duty by Birth’ he develops this further:
“Let us all remember that this oneness (in making up the
Hindu as a nation—DB) is ingrained in our blood from our
very birth, because we are all bom as Hindus, For a Hindn,.
he gets the first samskar when he enters the mother’s womb,
and the last when his body is consigned to the flames... There-
fore, to strengthen the unity and spirit cf identity in our society
is a duty born with our birth, our sahaja karma. And that which
is our sahaja karma must not be given up even if it may appear
to be defective, says the Gita.” (p 156).
This concept of sahaja karma, the very basis of social con-
63°
servatism and therefore of stability for the ruling exploiting
class—the Brahmins and Kshatriyas over the Sudras—in old
times and now refurbished in a slightly different garb is pre-
sented by Golwalkar thus:
“Our definition of dharma is twolold. The first is prcper re-
habilitation of man’s mind; and the second is adjustment of
various individuals for a harmonious corporate existence, i.e. a
good social order to hold the people together.” (p 59).
Golwalkar totally denies the secular character of the modem
democratic state based on territory and other criterion of citizen-
ship. According to him, “the mere fact of birth or nurture in
a particular territory, without a corresponding mental patter,
can never give a person the status of a national in that land.
Mental allegiance has been, in fact, the universally accepted
criterion for nationality.” (p. 167, emphasis mine),
We need not join issue with him as to whether this is the
‘universal criterion of nationality’, What is of relevance to us
here is that this ‘mental allegiance’ comes through imbibing the
Hindu semskars which we have quoted above and is thus de-
veloped elsewhere by Golwalkar:
“,..Wwe say that we have to imbibe deep and positive s«:is-
kurs of our nationhood which shall not allow us to be swept
cff our feet by political or other considerations. It is of no use
to speak of Hindu Nationhood and the eminence of Hindu
way of life without a corresponding life-pattern in our prac-
tical day-to-day behaviour.” (pp 80-81).
India is the land of the Hindus only and the other non-Hindu
population can only exist, according to Golwalkar, under suf-
ferance and as second-class citizens, Let us see how he puts it:
“We must revive once again the purakrama-vad. (It is men-
tioned a few lines earlier in the previous paragraph to this that
parakrama-vad_ means _assimilation-ism—DB). For that, we
should make it clear that the non-Hindu who lives here has a
rashtra dharma (national responsibility), a sumaja dharma (duty
to society), a kula dharma (duty to ancestors), and only in his
cyakti dharma (personal faith) he can choose any path which
64
satisfies his spiritual urge. If, even after fulfilling all those
various duties in social life, anybody says that he has studied
Quran Sherif or the Bible and that way. of worship strikes a
sympathetic chord in his heart, that he can pray better through
that path of devotion, we have absolutely no objection. Thus
he has his choice in a portion of his individual life. For the rest,
he must be one with the national current. That is real assimi-
lation.” (pp 173-74).
We have to be thankful to Golwalkar for giving this conces-
sion to the non-Hindu section of the population in ‘a portion’ of
his individual life.’ But in plain language he makes it clear that
national integration can only take place, only when a person
bas accepted the Hindu conception of life—that is the mental
allegiance and criterion of Indian nationality and for which a
person must not only accept caste divisions but also imbibe all
the samskars etc, to make it his dharma in all its aspects, his
rashtra, his samaja and kula—his sahaja karma—in a word this
is Gita’s swadharma-palana par excellence.
We have already said that Golwalkar is very logical in his
understanding and presentation of things. With this conception
of Hinduism and Hindu Rashtra, he therefore devotes three
chapters, XVI, 1 and 2 and 8, naming them as “Internal Threats”,
and serialising them as “1, Muslims”, “2. Christians”, and “3.
the Communists”. The two chapters preceding XVI viz. XIV
and XV are entitled as follows: XIV in two parts: 1. Hindu
Rashtra and ‘Minorities, 2. Hindu Rashtra and Secularism,
followed by XV which is: ‘Affirm Basic Truths’, We will have
to examine all these and to avoid lengthy quotations a certain
amount of summarisation will have to be done.
What is expected of the ‘religious minorities’ is “the shedding
of the notions of their being ‘religious minorities’ as also their
‘foreign mental complexion’ and merging themselves in the
‘common national stream of this soil’” (p 208). Therefore it is
suggested that these ‘religious minorities’ should become pro-
per Hindus to qualify for the citizenship of the Hindu Rashtra
or Indian state of Golwalkar’s conception by imbibing in full,
even mentally, al] those Hindu samskars and certainly accepting
the caste divisions. He refers in this connection to the Indo-
ia 65
nesian Muslims teaching Ramayana to their children, as if the
Ramakatha or the story of Ramayana belongs to the Hindus
alone. The Ramakatha extends well into the whole region of
south-east Asia with India as its centre, We may also draw the
attention of Golwalkar’s followers to the culture of our neigh-
bouring state, Bangladesh, majority of whose citizens happen
to be of Islamic faith but who have fully accepted the entire
tradition of Bengali culture from Ram Mohan Roy to Rabindra-
nath Tagore and are engaged in enriching the Bengali language
and culture with some original research work on these and
other allied subjects.
In affirming Basic Truths, it is said: “We are one country,
one society, and one nation with a community of life-values and
secular aspirations and interests, and hence it is natural that
the affairs of the nation are governed through a single state
of the unitary type.” (p 224, emphasis mine).
It is obvious that here we have the basic ingredients of a
fascistic type of state. And this is ideologically buttressed further
by identifying swadharma with swadesh. And it is in this vein
blandly asserted: “people whose loyalty to the country and her
traditions, to her heroes down the centuries, to her security and
prosperity, is undivided and unadulterated, are national” (p 229).
Hence, Muslims are alien when they talk in terms of pro-
tecting Muslim interests (p 246), As for Christians, “their
activities are not merely irreligious, they are also anti-national”
(p 251). And as for communists,—this is the third item under
‘Internal Threats’ after the Muslims and the Christians, Gol-
walkar is in a somewhat confused state. For tu him, commu-
nists are a sworn enemy of democratic procedure, but lea-
ders are taking up their slogans and making them respectable.
And then there is the rationality of science against faith which
he cannot stomach and says: “So any attempt, from whatever
quarter, to uproot our ancient and life-giving faith, a faith
which has sustained us and produced the finest flowers of
human culture, is bound to bring about sure national disaster”
(p 260).
Then the wicked communists’ slogan of ‘land to the tiller’
against the impotency of the Bhoodan movement by Vinoba
66
Bhave “will only give rise to an impression in the mass mind
that after all communism is correct and is inevitable” (p 260).
And lastly, the government itself by declaring “ ‘Socialism’
(same in content as communism and differing only in the
method of achievement) as their goal” (p 260) makes the threat
of ‘communism “real from another quarter in our country” (p
261), Hence do away with all “foreign theories and ‘ism’.” This
is “highly humiliating to a country which has given rise to an
all-comprehensive philosophy, capable of furnishing the true
and abiding basis for reconstruction of national life on political,
economic, social and all other planes. It would be sheer bank-
ruptcy of our intellect and originality if we believe that human
intelligency has reached its zenith with the present theories
and ‘isms’ of the West” (p 265),
This is certainly preaching a kind of national exclusiveness
which is another name for obscurantism. And to say that ‘isms’
belong to the West betray not only deliberate ignorance of our
own national heritage but also an element of demagogy is to
be discerned here.
It should not be difficult to present an almost exact parallel
from the Islamic revivalist writings to what Golwalkar is preach-
ing here and is now actively taken up by the RSS in its various
training camps and the like. Similarly, the present theocratic
Islamic state of Pakistan has virtually declared all its non-
Muslim sections of the population as second-class citizens.
In this whole approach of Golwalkar of building up a Hindu
Rashtra certainly as a theocratic Hindu state, and which if it
ever comes into being will be almost a replica of the present
theocratic Islamic state of Pakistan, Bhagavad-Gita has provided
one of the main ideological basis. Hinduism as the basis of In-
dian nationalism which qualifies a person to be a citizen of the
Hindu Rashtra of Golwalkar’s thoughts and designs is based
on vamasram i.e. caste division and karma of swadharma-palana,
i.e, doing ones duty according to the station in life to which one
is born and without awaiting for any results. Golwalkar quotes
the famous sloka of Bhagavad-Gita of ‘swadharme nidhana
sreya’ etc. to “rekindle the Hindu way of life brushing off the
ashes of self-forgetfulness and imitation covering the immoral
embers of the age-old samskars in the Hindu heart so that the
67
pure flame of the National Self of this sacred land will once
again blaze forth in all its effulgence,” and which theretoye
“comes up before us as the call of the National Swadharma’
87).
ve early nationalist leaders in utilising Gita to rouse nation-
al consciousness against alien rule overlooked the strong Hindu
revivalist character with which they were imprinting our na-
tional movement, A parallel movement developed under the
Islamic faith which should be traced but not within our pur-
view here. Gandhiji tried to bring the two under one front by
his Congress-Khilafat unity but failed largely because what-
ever the temporary advantages, a mass movement has to ad-
vance on its mass and class demands and necessarily has to
be secular in character. In the present context, when national
not social liberation is on the agenda, this old imprint of
Hindu religious ideology on our national movement in the
hands of a Golwalkar and the RSS today provides the very
theoretical basis of a theocratic fascistic type of Hindu Rash-
tra and they find it handy to utilise Gita for the purpose. Thus
the original Swedharma of Gita which was introduced to
strengthen the class exploitation of a Brahmanical state of an-
cient Indja is now elevated further to a National Swadlarma.
68
G” Is so comprehensive in its treatment and encompasses
such a vast field of different schools of thinking that it is
easy to read many and often very contradictory things into
Gita. It is violence and non-violence, it is jnana, karma and
bhakti all combined, it also deals at length with sanyas, yoga,
cosmic evolution and even some sort of evolution of life.
The main common denominator in all these aspects of Gita
is no doubt a defence of class society and class oppression
arising out of its conception cf swgdharma performed by a
stitha-pragma person. Dr. D.D. Kosambi has put it very bluntly
as follows:
...the utility of the Gita derives from its peculiar funda-
mental defect, namely, dexterity in seeming to reconcile
the irreconcilable. The high god repeatedly emphasises
the great virtue of non-killing (ahimsa), yet the entire dis-
course is an incentive to war. So II. 19ff (already quoted)
says that it is impossible to kill or be killed... In Chapter
XI the terrified Arjuna sees all the warriors of both sides
rush into a gigantic Visnu-Krsna’s innumerable voracious
mouth (Visvarupa-darshan) and though the yajna sacrifice
is played down or derided it is admitted in III. 14 to be the
generator of rain, without which food and life would be
impossible.” (D. D, Kosambi, Myth and Reality, p 17).
We have to record that none of the popular forms of religion,
the bhakti movement in Maharashtra, the Mahanubhava or
Manbhav sect founded by Cakradhara in the twelfth century
upholding the ideals of tribal and communal life, Jnaneswar
and Namc'2v, some of whose teachings were incorporated into
the Grantha Saheb providing the basis of the popular form of
Sikhism among the Punjab peasantry, nor the movement re-
presented by Kabir, himself a weaver of Benaras claiming both
69
Hindus and Muslims as his followers or Chai'yana founding
his Vaishnavite cult of bhakti in Bengal sought inspiration from
the Gita.
We can refer to Frederick Engels’s The Peasant War in Cer-
many in this context: “It is clear that under the circumstances
all the generally voiced attacks against feudalism, above all
the attacks against the church, and all revolutionary social and
political doctrines had mostly and simultaneously to be the
theological heresies, The existing social relations had to be
stripped of their halo of sanctity before they could be attack-
ed.
“The revolutionary opposition to feudalism was alive all
down the Middle Ages. It took the shape of mysticism, open
heresy, or armed insurrection, all depending on the conditions
of the time.” (Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1974, p 42.)
Indeed these popular forms of religious movement was the
direct expression of a sense of acute social discontent, . But
unable to work a way out of the prevailing social malady and
injustice the preachers of these religious sects—a kind of peo-
ple’s priests they were—they often resorted to bhakti or devo-
tion to God, sometime even expressed as that of a lover to. his
beloved (the Vaishnav movement) or that of a son to his mother
(the Kali cult), Thus Sri Ramakrishna Paramhangsa, the guru
of Swami Vivekananda and a devotee of goddess Kali loved a
song in which occurs a line:
Kare dao Ma Indra-pada
Kare karo adhogami. (Some you, Mother, raise to the throne
and to some You take them down to lower depths). This acute
social discontent is ultimately sought to be resolved by them
through abject surrender to one’s fate in the name of bhakti as
expressed in the song:
Sakali tomari Icchha
Icchhamaye Tara Toomi
Tomar karma Toomi karo Ma
Loke bale kari ami. (Everything is according to your wish,
You are the goddess Tara who wills all. It is You who is doing,
70
karma, everything, but people think or say as if it is I who is
doing it).
What must be noted therefore with all this resigned attitude
(the sophisticated will say all this is tamasic but it is a rigma-
role and we are not interested with the niceties of it here),
these popular forms of religious movement had a revolutionary
content in the context of their time and therefore stood poles
apart from the highly refined teachings of Gita concealing de-
fence of class rule, stability and privileges.
This dual aspect of acute discontent coupled with an atti-
tude of abject surrender which acts as a palliative is very
aptly described by Karl Marx when he says:
Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real
distress and also the protest against real distress. Religion
is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heart-
less world, just as it is the spirit of spiritless conditions, It
is the opium of the people, (Marx-Engels, On Religion,
Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1975, p 39, emphasis in the
original).
It is interesting further to quote Frederick Engels from his
The Peusant War in Germany on this class position of the peo-
ple’s priests:
There were two distinct classes among the clergy. The
clerical feuda] hierarchy formed the aristocratic class: the
bishops and archbishops, abbots, pricrs, and other pre-
lates. These high church dignitaries were either imperial
princes themselves, or reigned as feudal lords under the
sovereignty of other princes over extensive lands with
numerous serfs and bondsmen. They not only exploited
their dependents as ruthlessly as the knights and princes,
but went at it with even less shame. Alongside brute force
they applied all the subterfuges of religion...
The plebeian part of the clergy consisted of rural and
urban preachers. These stood outside the feudal church
hierarchy and had no part in its riches. ...Of burgher or
plebeian origin, they stood close enough to the life of the
masses to retain their burgher and plebeian sympathies in:
"71
spite of their clerical status, While monks were an excep-
tion in the movements of their time, the plebeian clergy
was the rule. They provided the movement with theorists
and ideologists, and many of them, representatives of the
plebeians and peasants, died on the scaffold. The popular
hatred for the clergy turned against them only in isolated
cases. (Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1974, pp 33 & 34).
The Marathi bhakti poets faced untold hardship and hatred
of the Brahmins of their times. The protest was expressed in
Maharashtra from 12th century onwards by two different groups
both orientated towards Krishna-worship. One was the Maha-
nubhava or Manbhav sect, founded by Chakradhara in the 12th
century. “Black garments, absolute rejection of all the caste
system, organisation into clan-like sub-groups, sharing among
members and a greatly simplified marriage and ritual (geda-
bada-gunda) prove this... The other movement crystallised by
Jnaneswar was particularly strong among the seasonal varkari
pilgrims to Pandharpur who followed a custom which seems
to date back to the mesolithic age.” (Myth and Reality by D.
D. Kosambi, p 33)... “The Paithan brahman Eknath to whom
we owe the present text of the Jnaneswari (in 1590 a.p., now
available in Bengali translation also) as well as many fine
Marathi poems went out of his way to break the crudest res-
trictions of untouchability. The greatest of them all, the 16th
century Kunabi peasant and petty grain-dealer Tukaram sur-
vived grim famine, the unremitting jealousy of contemporary
folk-poets and the contemptuous hatred of brahmins ultimately
to drown himself in the river.” (bia, p 34).
Prof. B. G. Sardar in his valuable book Saint-poets of Maha-
rashtra, (Their Impact on Society), rendered into English from
the original Marathi by Kumud Mehta, published by Orient
Longman, has given some historical background to the origin
of the Bhakti movement in Maharashtra from 12th to the end
of the 17th century—a long line of pnets from Jnaneswara to
Eknath, Tukaram and Ramdas in Chatrapati Shivaij’s times.
Prof. Sardar points out that the movement of the saints, un-
like that of the Reformation in Europe which was an expres-
sion of the struggle of the rising bourgeovisie to do away with
feudal economic order and its hierarchica] institutions, sanc-
79
tioned by the high pries:s of the Roman Catholic Church
“sought to establish equality in religious life alone... and did
not at all feel the need to interfere in the social system of the
time.” What must be noted is that all of them rigidly bound
by the cast-iron conservatism of Brahmanical heirarchy and
strengthened further by the conception of karma (i.e. swadhar-
ma-palana) as enunciated by Gita found it difficult to challen-
ge the chaturvarna and all the rest of it directly. Prof. G, B.
Sardar records:
“The doctrine of karma and the system of caste determined
by birth were far from conducive to the development of the
individual; and the lower classes felt the oppressive yoke of a
mental subjugation which was even more terrible than econo-
mic slavery” (p 15).
It is true that some of them like Jnaneswara (or Dnyanesh-
wara as spelt by Prof, Sardar) gave a twist to the interpreta-
tion of IX. 32 of Gita (“for those who take refuge in Me, though
they are lowly born, women, Vaisyas, as well as Sudras, they
also attain to the highest goal”) to suggest a way out of caste
division. This is how he interpreted the verse: “Ksatriya,
vaisya, woman, sudra and untouchable retain their separate
existence only so long as they have not attained Me... Just as
rivers have their individual names, whether coming from east
or west, only till they merge into the ocean, Whatever be the
reason for which one’s mind enters into Me, he then becomes
Me, even as the iron that strikes to break the philosopher’s
stone turns into gold at the contact. So, by carnal love like
the milk-maids, Kamsa in fear, Sisupala by undying hatred,
Vasudeva and the Yadavas by kinship, or Narada, Dhruva,
Akrura, Suka and Sanatkumarara through devotion—they all
attained Me. I am the final resting place, whether they come
to Me by the right or the wrong path, bhakti, lust or the pur-
est love, or in enmity.” (Myth and Reality, D. D. Kosambi, pp
35-36).
The scrutinising reader must also note in the text of the
Gita (IX, 32) as quoted above that woman is placed in the same
position as sudras, lowely born and the like and it goes with-
out saying that in the medieval times in which the Bhakti
73
poets worked did not allow for an advanced bourgeois think-
ing. The same set of ideas can be traced in Sri Chaityanna of
Bengal, also influencing Orissa and murdered by the high pri-
ests because he preached social equality, Guru Nanak of Pun-
jab and others. What must also be noted that many of these
saints, particularly in the later medieval times from fifteen cen-
tury onwards were elevated after their lifetime to the position
of a prophet, like an avatar, thereby adopting them into the
fold of orthodox Hinduism and taking away the revolutionary
stings out of their teachings and sayings.
It is not surprising therefore that some of these popular forms
of religious movement were persecuted by the high priests of
Brahmanical orthodoxy who denounced their simple ways of
living and teaching thereby bringing down the gods from its
sanctum sanctorum to the common folk. These people's pri-
ests always talked in native vernacular language, never in
Sanskrit. Even Jaydev’s Gita-Gobinda of outstanding literary
merit and highly enjoyable for its musical qualities with its
many aliterations and versification was simple in its presenta-
tion,
74
| be THE EARLY phase of the national movement, particularly
when even the goal of national and political liberation
could not be defined very clearly, Gita with its call to action,
and its attitude towards the soul in the body as indestructible,
its holding out the promise of a dharma raj provided the com-
mon ideological basis for our search for national identity and
to deny the satanic rule that was the British colonial order any
sanction. But as national movement sweeps forward and in-
evitably as class question and class demands appear on the
national-political scene with the working class and the toiling
masses coming forward with their own ideas of national and
social liberation, the social conservative aspect of Gita’s teach-
ings provide a handy weapon to the Indian bourgeoisie to
preach class peace and harmony. And now after Independ-
ence, with the problem of social liberation directly on the agen-
da, Gita is utilised in a big way by the Birlas and other mono-
poly houses with their Gita-mahayagnas and huge miulti-co-
loured posters and other elaborate publicity materials which
directly help them to dampen the class ardour and intensity of
the class struggle in the country.
Our law-givers in general, Manu’s and Gita’s teachings in
particular, and their interpretation of swadharma and their eu-
logies of varnasram-dharma denied any human status to sudras
almost as Plato looked down upon the slaves as sub-human
creatures, Today with the socialist transformation of society
on the agenda it is this new type of sudras, the proletariat and
other toiling masses who “will have to act as its decisive ar-
chitects. It is of course not the negative conception of mukti
as an imaginary escape from the world. It is the positive
conception of mukti understood as changing the world”. This
is how Prof. Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya sums the entire phi-
losophical tradition in his book What is Living and What is
Dead in Indian Philosophy.
75
Frederick Engels in 1892 ‘On the History of Early Christian-
ity’ opens his essay like this:
“The history of early Christianity has notable points in
common with the modern working-class movement. Like
the latter, Christianity was originally a movement of op-
pressed people; it first appeared as the religion of slaves
and freed men, of poor people derived of all rights, of
peoples subjugated or dispersed by Rome. Both Christia-
nity and the workers’ socialism preach forthcoming salva-
tion from bondage and misery; Christianity places this
salvation in a life beyond, after death, in heaven social-
ism places it in this world, in a transformation of society.
Both are persecuted and baited, their adherents are despis-
ed and made the objects of exclusive laws, the ones as
enemies of religion, the family, of the human race, the
others as enemies of the state, enemies of social order. And
in spite of all persecution, nay, even spurred on by it, they
forge victoriously, irresistibly ahead, Three hundred years
after its appearance Christianity was the recognised state
religion of the Roman World Empire, and in barely sixty
years socialism has won itself a position which makes its
victory absolutely certain.” (Marx & Engels, On Religion,
Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1976 edition, p 275).
Today with Socialism victorious over one-third of the globe,
with Soviet Union as an advanced socialist community of peo-
ples and nations leading and charting the path forward to
Communism, we can be confident of the future victory of So-
cialism on a world scale.
The struggle goes on in the whole capitalist world and equ-
ally in our country to establish a rational order of society based
on equity, social justice and no exploitation. The ideological
struggle to establish man’s final superiority over nature, the
triumph of reason over obscurantism and_ superstition, which
must lead to the cognition of material reality against all dog-
mas quoted from Scriptures and the like,—in this Gita or for
the matter of that any other religious classics or scriptures can
still be enjoved for their aesthetic value and as a source ma-
terial to understand our ancient past. But to attempt to read
76
more, to elevate Bhagavad-Gita to a revealed knowledge and
seek a panacea for world’s ills today only helps the present rul-
ing bourgeois class to prolong their sys:em cf{ exploitation. That
needs to be ideologically combated ut every stage of our
struggle.
World imperialism is fighting its last ditch battle here in
India. Our hoary past with its heavy traditions sanctified by
our long history weighs heavily on us. The process of sifting
out, what is to be accepted and rejected is not an easy task,
But it is inseparable from our struggle to build Socialism and
a just rational social order. And with India going the social-
ist way it is the final death blow to world imperialism. And
that also will be the end of man’s pre-hisiory. It will be a
leap for the humanity to a new dimension in his existence
on this Earth, a leap from the realm of necessity to the realm
of freedom.
77
THE PECULIARITIES OF HINDUISM
T HE KEY problem of Indian history is change without a
break in continuity. Its root lies in the extremely gradu-
al growth of Indian economy resulting in the lingering of tribal
customs and traditions even after the emergence and develop-
ment of a class divided, exploitative society. This continuity
and change are witnessed in every sphere of social life in
India. Naturally, that is a vast and comprehensive subject.
Here, we will examine how this phenomenon is expressed in
the peculiarities of Hinduism as a religion.
It is often said that Hinduism is not a religion but a way of
life. This characterisation throws no light on the issue since
it only raises the question as to what that “way of life” is,
Besides, it serves no purpose to use expressions which are so
amorphous that they only confuse the question instead of clari-
fying it. It is clearly incorrect to say that Hinduism is not a
religion, It has its concept of God; it has forms of worship,
prayer and propitiation; it has priests who perform religious
rites. So it has all the necessary ingredients of a religion.
Another peculiar feature of Hinduism, it is claimed, is that
it created a common culture in the whole of the country. But
this is, by no means, peculiar to Hinduism. In ancient and
medieval times when religion was the binding ideological force
of society all over the world, Christianity, Islam and Buddh-
ism also did the same in respect of peoples who embraced
those religions. And the adherents of these religions were
spread over many countries and continents.
The only way of nailing down the peculiarities of Hinduism
is to state the specific features which distinguish it from other
religions. These are many. We can begin with the simplest
and pass on to the more complex.
Unlike the other great religions of the world, Christianity,
Islam and Buddhism, Hinduism has no single founder, no sin-
gle, basic Book. It has no Christ, Mohammad or Buddha; no
Bible, no Queran and no Buddhist Canon.
Really speaking, it has no prophet, as such, It has tishis,
munis, avatars, recognised historical figures like Shankara,
as also many saints, as its religious authorities. And,
with all the “revealed” nature of the most ancient Vedas,
in reality, the smritis, the Geeta, the Mahabharata and_ the
Puranas are no less authoritative scriptures of Hinduism than
the Vedas. In fact, these later holy books, so far as the Hin-
duism of the last 1500 to 2000 years is concerned, are more au-
thoritative than the holy of holies, the Vedas.
That brings us to the next peculiarity of Hinduism, that it
was never “born”. It “just grewed”.'| Even the words “Hindu”
and “Hinduism” were coined by Muslim invaders after the
eighth or ninth centuries. They were just not there from the
Rig Veda to Shankara, a span of nearly 2500 years.
Since Hinduism “just grewed”, naturally enough, Vedic “Hin-
duism” was very different from that of the Brakmanas and the
Upanishads, and the latter again, from that of the smritis, the
Geeta, the Puranas, the Mahabharata, etc. which continues to
our day. The difference, indeed, is so great that a Rig Vedic
rishi, if he were to be reborn today, would not recognise today’s
Hinduism as his religion.
And yet, it is also true, that there is a continuity between the
Vedas and present-day Hinduism. This has to be accepted, if
for no other reason than this, that there never has been a clean
break between Vedic religion and later Hinduism. Chatur-
varnya, the parent of the later ramified caste system, goes back
to the Vedic period. Further, though idol worship is now the
dominant form of Hindu worship, the Yajna has not been con-
signed to oblivion. It continues for some specific rites. So
again, the same Indian phenomenon, continuity and change.
1. In Uncle Tom's Cabjn there is a negro slave girl who is sold by
one master to another many times ever since her birth. So much 90,
indeed, that she could not imagine that she was ever “born”. When
asked when she was bor, she replied: “I was never born, I just grewed”
Ditto, Hinduism,
All the same, a few of the glaring changes must be noted.
The centre of Rig Vedic religion was the yajna, the sacrificial
fire. In fact, Rig Vedic rites were no religion at all in the ac-
cepted sense of the term. The Rig Veda has no omnipotent,
omniscient God, the Creator and Governor of the world, It has
no place for worship, prayer and propitiation by helpless and
cringing mortals dependant on His favours for their protection
and welfare,
The Vedic yajnu was what the anthropologists call Magic (in
Sanskrit, it is called yaatu). It was the yujna that was all-power-
ful, the creator and governor of everything. Even the Vedic
Gods, e.g. Indra, Varuna, Mitra, eic, (there was no One God,
at that time) were subject to the command and control of yujna.
They participated in yajng rices, and it they violated its rules,
they were cursed or became powerless. The belief (faith) of
‘the Rig Vedic people was that if the yajna was performed stric-
‘tly according to prescribed rituals and incantations, the latter,
again, recited according to strict rhyme and rhythm, it was
bound to bring about the result desired by the pertormer of the
yajna. And the result demanded, in the Rig Veda, was always
robust health, food, progeny, cows, heaven, etc.
There is no alma, no brahma, no moksha, no idol worship
in the Rig Veda.
And most interestingly, Rig Vedic rishis not only ate beef,
they feasted on it without the slightest sense of embarrassment,
leave aside any feeling of guilt for committing the most un-
forgivable of all sins, killing and eating the cow.
Then follow the Upanishads, dethroning and even reviling
the mighty Vedic Gods, and downgrading the yajna as the
Supreme cosmic power. The main quarrel of the Upanishadic
rishis with those of the Rig Vedic period was ‘hat the jiatter
were only bothered about good health, good food, cows and
other worldly goods, or, at the most, a trip to heaven, whereas
the be-all and end-all of life was to realise the Infinity of the One
and Only Brahma (ekamecaadtvitiyam), as also that of the atima,
and to merge one’s atma with the Brahma for attaining eternal
liberation (moksha). Asceticism and meditation were the means
83
to that end; not the yajna, which after all, only promised the:
fleeting and corporal pleasures of heaven. A theoretical battle
royal went on for a few centuries between the champions of
Poorva Meemansa (the defenders of the Vedic yajna) and of
Uttar Meemansa, the defenders of Upanishadic, mystical ideal--
ism, i.e, Vedanta.
Together with Vedanta came the theory of rebirth and karma..
Let us skip over the long period during which Buddhism:
challenged Upanishadic theories and religion all along the line,.
but, having itself degenerated, was ultimately defeated by a.
“new” Hinduism.
And that was the Hinduism, as pointed out earlier, of the
Smritis, the Geeta, the Mahabharata and the Puranas.
Now we get a personalised God, an gvatar, viz. Krishna, the
avatar of Vishnu. We also get bhakti of the Geeta, a simple
path of love, devotion and prayer. This was meant particularly
for women, vaishyas and shudras, so that they may also attain
moksha. This aim was denied to them by the Upanishads,
which advocated only one path to moksha, viz, meditation,,.
called the jnana marg, which was all Greek and Latin to women,
vaishyas and shudras. Idol worship also came in the wake of
bhakti. Probably, veneration of the cow also, because, Bud-
dhism had vehemently opposed yajna and the sacrificing of
cows, bullocks, horses, etc. at the yajna sacrifices.
Having just “grewed”, Hinduism displays a third distinctive
feature, viz. that it has been the most self-propelling of all the:
religions of the world. It has no organised Church, no institu-
tionalised hierarchy like Christianity, Islam and Buddhism. It
is difficult to imagine the existence and continuation of these
three religions without the scaffolding of their churches and
hierarchies. Hinduism, certainly, has temples, way-side shrines,.
and brahmin priests for performing religious rites. It would
be wrong to say that Hinduism has no organisation. It has.
But it has no institutionalised organisation, controlled and direc-
ted by an authority from the top. So, if it has “just grewed”,
it also “just works”. It propells itself without any formal con-
trolling and guiding authority. The great Shankara attempt-
84
ed to establish such an institution, but it has never been found
necessary, and hence, has remained only notional.
How has this clock called Hinduism worked “without wind-
ing”, without a “regulator” adjusting its movement, without a
>> 6
“mechanic” “oiling and repairing it” from time to time?
That is the real question, and if we find the answer, there
meed be no mystique about this strange “way of life”, and the
‘peculiar features of Hinduism will fall in place as natural and
inevitable in the socio-economic conditions and circumstances
tin which Hinduism developed and grew.
Religion is a superstructure. In that capacity, it deals with
‘the relation between man and God. But the superstructure
thas material roots, and if it were not to strengthen its material
foundation, it would not survive as a superstructure.
From this standpoint, what is the historical achievement of
Hinduism? (I am not referring here to its role as the spiritual-
ideological weapon of the propertied, governing classes, which
is a function of all religions.)
In this connection, the first thing that one has to notice is,
that unlike the three other religions, Hinduism has been, ab
initio, a religion of the exploiting, dominating, oppressing
classes,
The origin of Christianity was in the misery of the slaves in
Rome and their yearning for emancipation. The roots of Bud-
dhism lay in Buddha’s compassion for the downtrodden castes
as also his passion for removing their pain and sorrow. Islam
arose as a movement for uniting warring tribes by assuring
quality to all who recognised only one Allah, and Mohammed
as their only Prophet.
What was the origin of Hinduism? It was the “Aryan”, Ksha-
‘triya-Brahmin domination over the shudras and vaishyas in
the form of chaturvarnya.
It can be proved, chapter and verse, that the Vedantic, meta-
physical concept of Brahma as the Ultimate, Formless, Eter-
nal, Unchanging, Unthinkable, Nirguna Reality developed, pari
85
passu, with the concept of Brahma as the creator and regulator
of the social system of cliaturvarnya. Champions of Vedantic
idealism are revolted, like virgins, when this interconnection.
is brought to their notice. But fact is fact, however “unholy”
it may be.
Still further, the theory that every member of every varna.
attains moksha (merging into the Brahma), through a series of
rebirths, by strictly performing his varna duties (called karma in.
the Hindu scriptures) was also, transparently, a theory worked.
out by the brahmin-kshatriya establishment in their own class.
interest.
In course of time, every religion becomes a tool of the exploi-
ting classes, the opium of the people. But, if one wants to.
study the distinctive features of Hinduisra, that it was such a
tool from the very beginning, cannot be overlooked.
So, the development of chaturvarnya, not only as a religious:
institution, but clearly as a socio-economic system of exploita-
tion was a historical contribution of Hinduism.’ The key to the
self-propelling nature of Hinduism lies in the self-reproducing:
character of the caste system with its functional, endogamous
basis,
Proceeding further, the really great achievement of Hinduism:
was the bringing of numberless primitive tribes from the hunt-
ing and foodgathering stage to the stage of settled agriculture,.
artisanship and handicrafts. This it did, not only by absorbing.
them as castes in the Hindu fold, but also by helping them im-
prove their productive technique. Land gifts by kings and tra-
ders to brahmins and temple-trusts played a very great role in
this activity. Our temples of God have been, and continue to
be, temples of landlordism, and of vast quantities of gold and
money received from devotees which served as capital for trade
and usury.
2. The word “contribution” may appear improper for describing a:
method ot exploitation and oppression. But could early tribal Indo-Aryan
society advance without the development of chaturvarnyg? History it-
selt has given the answer. And chaturvarnya was undoubtedly a more
productive social system than the primitive, pastoral tribal society from-
which it evolved, despite its exploitative and oppressive character.
86
This gradual process, spread over centuries and centuries, in
its turn, influenced the development of Hinduism as a religion,
and helps us to understand some of its distinctive features.
No other religion in the world has succeeded in synthesising.
a profound faith in the oneness of God with the actual worship
of myriads of deities, as Hinduism has done. And it was not as
if only the amazingly speculative brahmin priesthood at the top
believed in One God while the rustic masses below went on
believing in numberless Gods, each group or tribe in its own Ged.
No, Even in the remotest villages, the most untutored peasant
came to believe that God was One but that he could be wor--
shipped in any and all forms, including the one to which he
was devoted. The one in the many was a concept carried to the
nooks and corners of the country, The Geeta calls it “the Un-.
divided in the Divided”, And this was dene through endless
bhajans, kirtans, kathas, poojas, utsavas and what not. The
synthesis was not just a crude patch-up. It went deep into the
consciousness and faith of the millions.
How do we explain this? It can only be explained by the
necessity of absorbing and assimilating hundreds of tribes with
their tribal deities and Gods into the Hindu fold, at the top of
which stood probably the most subtle, acutely intellectual,
speculative, priesthood in the world, the brahmins. In caste
rules, with their endogamy somehow borrowed from tribal life,°
no permissiveness was tolerated. In the deities to be worshipped
and the forms of worship, all flexibility was allowed. The tribal
deities became the “form” of the monotheistic, sophisticated
Hindu Godhood at the top. That was how the custodians of
Hinduism solved the problem of bringing various tribes into the
Hindu fold, combining unity with diversity.
This process of synthesising mono-theism with poly-theism
and pan-theism was expressed in yet another dexterous tech-
nique, Of the Hindu Trinity, Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh, the-
3. This does not mean that caste and tribe were identical. Castes.
emerged in various ways and due to various reasons, of which the:
absorption of tribes was one. But endogamy in caste hias some connec-
tion with endogamy in tribe. This is a question on which a lot of further
investigation and research are needed.
R?
last, at Jeast his later attributes, were taken over from the non-
Aryan tribes. The Rudra of the Vedus was very different from
the Shiva-Shankara of the later Hindu period. But innumerable
totemic Gods of the backward tribes were also “taken over” as
subordinate deities of the Hindu Gods. We have Vishnu riding
on the Garuda, the mouse before Ganapati, Hanuman before
Rama, Yama riding on the buffalo, Nandi before Shiva, the
Kalia serpent under Shri Krishna and so on.
One unique feature of Hinduism needs further clarification,
and that is, caste. Hinduism is the only religion that has created
a distinct social organisation. Like other religions, it has adapted
itself to slavery, feudalism and capitalism. But caste has always
remained. So much so, that Hinduism is inseparable from caste.
If we cannot imagine other religions without their Church and
institutionalised hierarchy, Hinduism 1s inconceivable without
cas.e. So long as Hinduism is there, castes have to be there
And when the caste system ends as a result of inter-caste mar-
riages becoming the universal norm among Hindus, the Hin-
duism that has “grewed” through centuries and millenia will
come to an end or, at any rate, will be transformed beyond
recognition,
The castes of Hinduism evolved in various ways.
Class differentiation developed among the primitive Indo-
Aryan tribes.
Secondly, any amount of cross-breeding took place between
them and the non-Aryan tribes, which no amount of denial by
those who boast about “pure Aryan blood” and denounce Varna
Sankara, can disprove. Some of this cross-breeding was sanciion-
ed by religion, law and custom (much the same thing in early
societies). Sudasa, Divodasa and the Great Rishi Vasishtha of
the Rig Veda (the last supposed to have been born from a “black
jar”) were surely not pure Aryans. Cross breeding also took
place through the institution of dasis, ie. women slaves in the
households of Aryan and upper-varna families. These dasis
came from non-Aryan tribes or the lower castes. To be a dast
was to be a concubine. The progeny of the dusis was categoris-
ed into various low castes.
Thirdly, the proliferation of handicrafts and trade with the
growing means of production also created castes.
88
|
|
=~ ~_=-—--
And, fourthly, innumerable aboriginal tribes were absorbed
into the Hindu fold as castes.
Caste necessarily means endogamy, because, without endo-
gamy, there can be no caste. This brings in the corollary that
every Hindu has to be born a Hindu, since, without belonging
to a caste, he cannot be a Hindu, and he cannot belong to a
caste unless he is born in it.
That is why, whatever may have happened in very ancient
times, there is really speaking no provision for an individual
entry into Hinduism, This has certainly been so for the last two
thousand years. There is no individual entry into Hinduism
because you cannot become a Hindu without belonging to a
caste, and you cannot belong to a caste unless you are born in it.
Despite the zeal of the Hindu shuddhi movement of the last
sixty years, the champions of that movement never tell us the
caste in which the new sluddhified entrant enters, They cannot
tell us for the simple reason that no caste will permit an out-
sider to enter it. The shuddhi champions may shout as much
as they want but they will not be able to solve one difficulty of
the person converted to Hinduism. He will not get a girl to
marry for no one will give him his daughter in marriage. So,
even granting for the sake of argument, that a single person
can be converted to Hinduism, he will have to remain hanging
in the air, like Trishanku, neither on earth, nor in heaven.
It is claimed by the BJP leaders that harijans recently con-
verted to Islam at Meenakshipuram were reconverted to Hin-
duism. May we ask, “which caste did they join on reconver-
sion”? The BJP bosses dare not reply, because they must have
returned to the fold of their “mother caste” as untouchables.
To those who speak mystically or nostalgically about Hin-
duism not being a religion but “a way of life”, I will say, “that
way of life is caste”. And caste means unbridgeable inequality
by birth, caste means a society fragmented into a thousand
divisions. There, you have your “way of life!”
And all this, when you go to the root, is the result of an
extraordinarily slow economic development of society, a mix-
up of lingering tribal traditions with a slowly evolving class
Society, which was never “born” but “just grewed”.
89
Some Titles on Philosophy
INDIAN PHILOSOPHY
A Popular Introduction
Fourth Edition
by Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya
Rs. 35.00
LOKAYATA
A Study in Ancient Indian Materialism
Fourth Edition
by Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya
Rs. 60.09
WHAT IS LIVING AND WHAT IS DEAD
IN INDIAN PHILOSOPHY
Second Edition
by Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya
Rs, 55.00
INDIAN ATHEISM
by Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya
Rs- 50.00
MARXISM ON VEDANTA
Rs. 30.00
BUDDHISM: THE MARXIST APPROACH
Third Edition
Rs. 5.50
PEOPLE’S PUBLISHING HOUSE
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11